1 BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2
3 IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
4 SITE SPECIFIC PETITION )
OF MOBIL OIL CORPORATION ) R97-28
5 FOR RELIEF FROM 35 ILL. )
ADM. CODE 304.122, AMMONIA )
6 NITROGEN EFFLUENT STANDARDS )
7
8
9
10
11
12 The following is the transcript of a hearing
13 held in the above-entitled matter, taken
14 stenographically by GEANNA M. IAQUINTA, CSR, a
15 notary public within and for the County of Cook and
16 State of Illinois, before
Audrey Lozuk-Lawless,
17 Hearing Officer, at 375 West Briar Cliff,
18 Bolingbrook, Illinois, on the 2nd day of July, 1997,
19 A.D., commencing at 11:00 o'clock a.m.
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
2
1 A P
P E A R A N C E S:
2
HEARING TAKEN BEFORE:
3
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
4 100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
5 Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 814-6923
6 BY: MS. AUDREY LOZUK-LAWLESS
7
ROSS & HARDIES,
8 150 North Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60601
9 (312) 750-8687
BY: MR. DAVID L. RIESER
10
Appeared on behalf of Mobil Oil Corporation,
11
12
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
13
Dr. Ronald C.
Flemal
14
15
16 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MEMBERS
PRESENT:
17
Ms. Margaret P. Howard
18
Mr. Steven E. Vance
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
3
1 I N D E X
2 PAGES
3
GREETING BY HEARING OFFICER.................. 4
4
GREETING BY RONALD C. FLEMAL................. 7
5
OPENING STATEMENT OF DAVID L. RIESER......... 9
6
OPENING STATEMENT OF MARGARET P. HOWARD..... 12
7
TESTIMONY OF LILLIANA GACHICH............... 14
8
TESTIMONY OF JOHN H. KOON................... 33
9
TESTIMONY OF JAMES E. HUFF.................. 44
10
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION................. 49
11
CLOSING COMMENTS BY HEARING OFFICER......... 62
12
13
14
E X H I B I T S
15
Marked for
16 Identification
17 Exhibit No. 1...................... 13
18 Exhibit No. 2...................... 24
19 Exhibit No. 3...................... 31
20 Exhibit No. 4...................... 31
21 Exhibit Nos. 5 and 6............... 42
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
4
1 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Good morning. My name is
2 Audrey Lozuk-Lawless, and I'm the hearing officer in
3 this proceeding.
4 Seated to my right is Dr. Ronald
Flemal.
5 He is a presiding board member in this proceeding,
6 which is entitled In The Matter of Site Specific
7 Petition of Mobil Oil Corporation for Relief from 35
8 Illinois Administrative Code Part 304.122, Ammonia
9 Nitrogen Effluent Standards.
10 The Board has docketed this petition as
11 R97-28. Therefore, if you plan to file any
12 documents with the Board or comments, please do
13 include that reference number, R97-28.
14 This is currently the only scheduled
15 hearing in this matter, and it will be governed by
16 the Board's procedural rules for regulatory
17 hearings, which are found at 35 Illinois
18 Administrative Code 102.282, which means that any
19 information which is relevant and not repetitious or
20 privileged will be admitted into the record.
21 Please realize that if you are a witness
22 who's testifying, you will be sworn in and subject
23 to cross-questioning by any other person in the room
24 today.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
5
1 This proceeding is a site-specific
2 rulemaking, which was filed by Mobil Corporation on
3 April 24th, 1997.
4 At today's hearing, we will proceed with
5 Mobil's counsel giving an opening statement by David
6 Rieser. Then we will move to an opening statement
7 by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
8 Margaret Howard. Then we will go back to Mobil to
9 present its proposal.
10 Currently, Mobil has filed --
prefiled the
11 testimony of three witnesses. Those witnesses are
12 Lilliana Gachich, James Huff, and John
Koon. Those
13 prefiled testimonies will be marked as an exhibit
14 and attached to the transcript as if read.
15 The witnesses will then proceed and give
16 oral summaries of that
prefiled testimony, after
17 which, we will turn and ask if there's anyone in the
18 room who would like to ask questions of any of the
19 witnesses which have presented their testimony
20 today.
21 Then we will turn to the Agency, and if
22 they decide that they would like to put on anyone as
23 a witness, then we will proceed there.
24 At this point, if there's anyone in the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
6
1 public that would like to give any statements on the
2 record, it's their opportunity to do so, and, again,
3 I remind you that you'll be sworn in and then
4 subject to cross-questioning.
5 If you would not like to proceed in this
6 manner, you can certainly file a public comment with
7 the Board. The Board record will remain open after
8 the transcript is received, and you can file a
9 public comment to the Board, and, again, please
10 reference R97-28.
11 And note that any questions that Dr.
Flemal
12 or myself ask during this proceeding are not to
13 convey any bias or preconceived notions about the
14 proposal before us, but simply to make a complete
15 record for the other board members who are not
16 present with us today.
17 Any requests for additional hearings will
18 be dealt with at that time. If you would like to
19 make a request for an additional hearing, please
20 look to the Board's procedural rules at 35 Illinois
21 Administrative Code 102.161, which requires that the
22 proponent or any other participant who wishes to
23 request an additional hearing demonstrate in a
24 motion to the Board that failing to hold an
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
7
1 additional hearing would result in material
2 prejudice to the
movant.
3 Okay. So then at this time, Dr.
Flemal,
4 would you like to say anything?
5 DR. FLEMAL: Perhaps just briefly. Usually, at
6 this point, I like to make just a small statement
7 describing the nature of the Board and the role that
8 the Board has in establishing the environmental
9 standards for the state of Illinois.
10 I'm going to forgo that this morning, in
11 the main part at any rate, realizing that the people
12 in attendance here are well -- in general,
13 well-familiar with the Board and the role it does
14 play.
15 I would note simply that the record that we
16 presently have before us in terms of the petition
17 and the
prefiled testimony plus any record that we
18 develop today and subsequently through a public
19 comment period will be reviewed in its entirety by
20 the members of the Board, myself and the other six
21 board members, upon which the Board will make a
22 determination as to the continuing or, perhaps,
23 noncontinuing disposition of this petition.
24 Assuming that it does continue, the Board
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
8
1 may move, at that stage, to move the petition to
2 first notice or as we have received the petition or
3 in some modified form.
4 I would anticipate that that action would
5 be before the Board probably during the month of
6 August. We have two meetings during that month, and
7 I would hope that, perhaps, at one of those meetings
8 the Board could be looking at that decision
9 regarding this petition.
10 Other than that, let me simply welcome
11 everybody to the process. We appreciate your
12 contributions to it and look forward to having the
13 record well-developed in this matter.
14 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Dr.
Flemal, and I
15 would add that as I mentioned, you will be able to
16 file any comments that you would like while the
17 record is open, and this record will close on July
18 28th, and the mailbox rule does not apply.
19 Therefore, the Board has to receive your comments by
20 July 28th.
21 So, Mr.
Rieser, would you like to give an
22 opening statement, and, I'm sorry, but also before
23 you give your testimony, please do speak loudly and
24 clearly and introduce yourself before you begin so
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
9
1 the court reporter has an accurate record. Thank
2 you.
3 MR. RIESER: Thank you very much. My name is
4 David
Rieser. I'm with the law firm of Ross &
5 Hardies, and I'm here on behalf of Mobil Oil
6 Corporation, which has filed a petition to seek
7 site-specific regulatory relief from 35 Illinois
8 Administrative Code 304.122. This is the effluent
9 standard for ammonia nitrogen.
10 This is what I hope is the end of a long
11 process that Mobil, the Agency, and the Board have
12 been involved in to find appropriate regulations to
13 limit ammonia nitrogen effluent from this refinery.
14 Mobil previously filed and obtained a
15 site-specific regulatory relief at R84-16, which was
16 codified at 35 Illinois Administrative Code 304.214
17 and was generally in compliance with the standard
18 that was described in this regulation.
19 However, as the testimony will describe
20 today, additional treatment requirements different
21 than traditional treatment was required as a result
22 of other regulatory requirements that inhibited the
23 nitrification processes that were allowed to exist
24 at the refineries existing configuration.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
10
1 Mobil has sought and obtained two variances
2 from the Board to study the problem further and to
3 determine whether or not further upgrades and
4 additional treatment could be applied to
5 consistently comply with the Board's ammonia
6 nitrogen effluent standard.
7 The findings of those studies, as will be
8 discussed today, are that consistent compliance
9 cannot be achieved without significant additional
10 expenditures of money and that the additional
11 treatment would also have certain environmental
12 impacts that would not be worth the additional
13 compliance level with ammonia nitrogen.
14 So we are here today to ask for permanent
15 relief based on the current high levels of treatment
16 that are currently being afforded by the refinery.
17 We have three witnesses, as was pointed
18 out. Ms.
Lilliana Gachich will testify regarding
19 the facility and the plant operations and the
20 results of the studies that were performed during
21 the variance proceeding.
22 Dr. John
Koon from Parsons Engineering
23 Science will testify regarding an intensive report
24 he performed regarding the treatment being afforded
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
11
1 the refinery, the treatment facilities there,
2 alternative treatment strategies and their costs,
3 and come to the conclusion, which I've stated, which
4 is that further treatment to consistently meet the
5 standards would be technically
infeasible and
6 economically unreasonable.
7 Finally, James Huff will testify regarding
8 the lack of environmental impact associated with the
9 relief which Mobil seeks, that the water quality of
10 the -- the receiving stream of the Des Plaines River
11 is currently sound, that the relief sought by Mobil
12 will not affect the water quality in any degree, and
13 that there will be no environmental impact
14 associated with the relief being granted.
15 I'd like, with the Board's permission, to
16 call the witnesses as a panel, have them identify
17 their testimony and summarize it verbally, as we
18 discussed, and then be available as a panel for
19 questions, although I'm sure individual questions,
20 as they come up during the course of the testimony,
21 could certainly be asked of the individuals.
22 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr.
Rieser.
23 Ms. Howard, do you have an opening
24 statement?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
12
1 MS. HOWARD: Yes. My name is Margaret Howard,
2 and I'm attorney with the Illinois Environmental
3 Protection Agency, and with me I have Mr. Steve
4 Vance of the Agency's Bureau of Water Planning
5 Section, and Mr. Vance and I have been involved with
6 this case since the spring of 1996 dealing with
7 Mobil's latest request for the variance, and now
8 there's been a request for the site-specific relief,
9 and we have reviewed the testimony that they are
10 presenting today of their three witness along with
11 data that Mr. Vance and Ms.
Gachich went over, and
12 at this time, given anything that comes up during
13 this hearing at this time, we are in agreement with
14 what Mobil is requesting from the Board.
15 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you. Thank you, Ms.
16 Howard.
17 Therefore, Mr.
Rieser, if you'd like to
18 present your witnesses in a panel form, then if the
19 court reporter could swear them all in at one time.
20 (Witnesses sworn.)
21 MR. RIESER: The first witness who will testify
22 will be Ms.
Lilliana Gachich. A copy of her
23 testimony was
prefiled. I'd like it to be -- I'm
24 going to show it to her and have it marked as an
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
13
1 exhibit, if I can.
2 Would you mark that as Exhibit 1, please?
3 (Exhibit No. 1 marked
4 for identification,
5 7-2-97.)
6 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: The
prefiled testimony of
7 Ms.
Lilliana Gachich will be marked as Exhibit No. 1
8 and entered into the record.
9 Thank you, Mr.
Rieser.
10 MR. RIESER: Ms.
Gachich, I'm going to show you
11 what's been marked as Exhibit 1 and ask if you can
12 identify this, please?
13 MS. GACHICH: Yes, I can. I prepared the
14 testimony and the attachments.
15 MR. RIESER: All of the attachments that are
16 included in the testimony were prepared by you?
17 MS. GACHICH: By me.
18 MR. RIESER: And they accurately reflect the
19 information that's described therein?
20 MS. GACHICH: Yes.
21 MR. RIESER: Could you briefly summarize your
22 testimony, please?
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
14
1 WHEREUPON:
2 L I L
L I A N A G A C H I C H,
3 called as a witness herein, having been first duly
4 sworn,
deposeth and saith as follows:
5 MS. GACHICH: Basically, my testimony is going
6 to show the configuration of the waste water
7 treatment plant in a simpler detail because Dr.
Koon
8 will go into deeper detail.
9 What I'd like to show and highlight is that
10 Mobil's waste water treatment plant is a modern one,
11 that it has highly segregated streams that the waste
12 water or processed water is segregated from storm
13 water or non-contact cooling water, and if you were
14 to look at Figure 1, which gives you the flow
15 diagram, you could then actually see that these
16 streams are segregated and that the sampling is done
17 upstream of where the two streams combine and are
18 then together discharged to the Des Plaines River.
19 The lower middle part of Figure 1 actually
20 depicts the discharge lines and the sampling points
21 for different streams. So it does tell you that the
22 individual streams are sampled upstream from where
23 the total effluent combines, and it's discharged
24 into a discharge split that Mr. Huff will talk about
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
15
1 later in his testimony.
2 Further to that, due to this highly
3 segregated process water and process waste water
4 treatment plant, I would like to point out that
5 Mobil's effluent is highly concentrated, and it may,
6 in essence, impede the treatment because we do not
7 have as much dilution as some other plants of a
8 similar nature would have.
9 However, environmentally speaking, it
10 behooved us once to use lesser amounts of water and
11 to practice water conservation, and we do subscribe
12 to that.
13 Further, part of my testimony shows the
14 historical performance of the waste water treatment
15 plant since the inception of the refinery itself in
16 1973, and you can see a detailed presentation of
17 that in Table 1 that shows ammonia historical
18 discharge in an annualized average form as well as
19 individual sample ranges.
20 Now, when I say individual samples, Mobil
21 is required under the NPDES permit to measure
22 ammonia in two weekly 24-hour composite samples.
23 So when you look at this column that gives
24 you the range of performance, it actually tells you
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
16
1 that this would have been a measurement in an
2 individual 24-hour composite sample, and then we
3 have averaged those for a whole year to give you the
4 annual average.
5 From the table itself, you can see that at
6 the inception, the plant did not perform as well as
7 one wished, and Mobil has spent quite a bit of money
8 to improve the performance, and later on in Mobil's
9 performance here, you can see that we have achieved
10 very, very good performance and especially in the
11 years of 1989 through 1992 -- '91, and after that.
12 Due to some of these regulatory required
13 changes that Mobil had to implement, our performance
14 has deteriorated, and, at that point, we applied for
15 a variance from the effluent standards and obtained
16 the variance, which the conditions of the variance
17 actually required us to perform an optimization
18 study, which we did, and to report to the Agency on
19 a six-month basis as to what the findings were.
20 And the basic findings of the study were
21 that it was the assumption that Mobil made that the
22 implementation of the Benzene Reduction Unit, which
23 was required under RCRA regulations, definitely
24 increased the toxicity of the process waste water,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
17
1 which subsequently caused the waste water treatment
2 plant to not function as well.
3 Further to that, we found out also that the
4 waste water treatment process itself creates --
5 during the process itself, the bacterial degradation
6 creates certain chemicals that appear to inhibit the
7 process itself. So it's sort of self-limited to
8 some extent, and the combination of increased
9 toxicity and self-limitation could definitely cause
10 problems.
11 Further, we also found out that the waste
12 water treatment plant, as it was in 1993, did not
13 have sufficient air capacity, and after that finding
14 was established, we applied for a permit from the
15 Illinois Pollution Control Agency to obtain a
16 construction permit and upgrade the waste water
17 treatment plant, which we have.
18 We made some additional upgrades in the
19 refinery itself to remove a stream that was also
20 found to be detrimental to nitrification, and one of
21 our -- of the exhibits in my testimony here Table --
22 Exhibit No. 2 lists the activities and mechanical
23 improvements to the waste water treatment plant that
24 Mobil actually implemented during the period of the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
18
1 variance to date and shows that we spent about $7.7
2 million upgrading the waste water treatment plant
3 and performing certain studies that we were required
4 to do under the variance and that we also wanted to
5 do so that we could improve the waste water
6 treatment performance plant.
7 Finally, the current performance of the
8 waste water treatment plant, and that is the
9 performance after November of 1996, that was the
10 date when the waste water treatment plant was
11 completely upgraded, is very good.
12 We have had some incursions, and for some
13 of those, we definitely have established a clause
14 and have taken appropriate measures to remove the
15 recurrence of those upsets and disturbances.
16 However, even when one removes the
17 instances of known problems, we have unexplained
18 deviation from what you could say very good
19 performance. The only thing that we know of now and
20 that we can contribute this to is the variability
21 and the kind of crude that we process, and one of
22 the exhibits in my testimony, Exhibit No. 8,
23 actually summarizes on an annual basis the number of
24 crudes that we process, and the amount of crude that
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
19
1 we process as well as the nitrogen content of those
2 crudes.
3 If you'll just turn to the first page that
4 shows January and February of '96, you can see that
5 we process about 27 different varieties of crude
6 oil. The crude oil is processed at different
7 amounts.
8 It does not necessarily come to the
9 refinery as a mixture of all these 27. We may get a
10 large quantity of one for a couple of days. The
11 next time, we may get a large quantity of some other
12 one, but as you can see, the nitrogen content of
13 these different
crudes varies substantially.
14 You would have some
crudes to have
15 extremely low nitrogen content, say, four, five, 600
16 parts per million, and then you have others that go
17 up to 4200 parts per million.
18 Now, when you are faced with maybe
19 processing crude that has 4,000 parts per million
20 versus the one that has maybe 500, you can see the
21 difficulty in managing the waste water that results
22 from this process, and there is no control that we
23 can implement to average these
crudes in such a way
24 that you would have equalization or complete
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
20
1 equalization because they are shipped through the
2 pipeline and then come in blocks.
3 When they come to a tank, there is a
4 certain amount of mixing, but not enough because of
5 the size of these shipments.
6 So what I would say at this point is that
7 Mobil has spent the last several years spending a
8 substantial amount of money, a substantial amount of
9 effort to upgrade its waste water treatment plant,
10 and has taken a very -- a lot of good measures to
11 maintain the performance of the waste water
12 treatment plant.
13 However, we are not able to consistently
14 meet with the state's standard in spite of all our
15 efforts and in spite of spending a sizable amount of
16 money to try to achieve that, and that's the reason
17 why we're here today hopefully to achieve some
18 relief because spending more money, as Mr. Huff will
19 testify to, will not improve the condition of the
20 receiving water.
21 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Let the record reflect that
22 Exhibit No. 1 does include all the tables and
23 exhibits that Ms.
Gachich referenced in her
24 testimony. Dr.
Flemal?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
21
1 DR. FLEMAL: I have several questions regarding
2 specific parts of your testimony that I think would
3 be useful if we address before we go on to the other
4 witnesses that Mobil wishes to present.
5 The first question is in reference to
6 Figure 1, which is Figure 1 attached to your
7 testimony Exhibit 1, which is the schematic flow
8 diagram.
9 I believe you indicated in your statement
10 that if we look in the lower center, we'll see where
11 the sampling points are respectively for the
12 effluent sampling and the storm water; is that
13 correct?
14 MS. GACHICH: You can see -- yes. You have --
15 treated water guard basin. Do you see that
16 particular facility?
17 DR. FLEMAL: Yes.
18 MS. GACHICH: That is the process -- treated
19 process water and last containment facility.
20 DR. FLEMAL: And you sample immediately
21 downstream --
22 MS. GACHICH: Immediately downstream of that.
23 DR. FLEMAL: Is that then equivalent to
outfall
24 001 in terms of --
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
22
1 MS. GACHICH: Yes, it is equivalent to
outfall
2 001.
3 DR. FLEMAL: And then immediately below that in
4 the diagram, I see storm water sampling point.
5 Would that be equivalent to 002?
6 MS. GACHICH: That would be equivalent to 003.
7 DR. FLEMAL: 003, right?
8 MS. GACHICH: Yes. That is an intermittent
9 stream only where we have storm water that's
10 discharged on an intermittent basis.
11 DR. FLEMAL: Okay. And then I see then below
12 that yet there's another stream. Is that --
13 MS. GACHICH: That would be 002.
14 DR. FLEMAL: Okay.
15 MS. GACHICH: And that continues discharge.
16 DR. FLEMAL: Is there sampling done of the 002
17 discharge on a regular basis or at all?
18 MS. GACHICH: The permit requires that we sample
19 twice a week 001, 002, and together with 002, the
20 river water intake because the standard is based on
21 the net difference in TOC.
22 DR. FLEMAL: At this point, I don't believe we
23 have actually within the record the NPDES permit
24 that you're referring to.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
23
1 MR. RIESER: Dr.
Flemal, we have copies here,
2 and we can -- I was prepared to introduce it as an
3 additional exhibit right now when I can do that.
4 DR. FLEMAL: Wherever it's convenient in terms
5 of getting it in the record. I'm sure it would be
6 useful for the Board simply to have that available
7 as a reference document.
8 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Would you like to enter it
9 into the record now?
10 MR. RIESER: Yeah. It had been my plan also to
11 have Ms.
Gachich go through some of the exhibits
12 just to verify what information was in there, but if
13 you're accepting them all as --
14 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Under her
prefiled
15 testimony?
16 MR. RIESER: Under her
prefiled testimony.
17 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Because it is attached --
18 MR. RIESER: Okay.
19 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: -- that would be the easiest
20 way to do it.
21 MR. RIESER: Okay. At this point then, I'd like
22 to introduce -- have this marked as Exhibit 2.
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
24
1 (Exhibit No. 2 marked
2 for identification,
3 7-2-97.)
4 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Let the record reflect that
5 Mr.
Rieser has moved for admitting Mobil's NPDES
6 permit dated July 21st, 1994, into the record as
7 Exhibit 2, and it has been so marked and admitted.
8 MR. RIESER: Ms.
Gachich, I'd like to show you
9 what's been marked as Exhibit 2, and ask if you can
10 identify it, please?
11 MS. GACHICH: Yes. That is a current NPDES
12 permit for Mobil Joliet Refinery.
13 MR. RIESER: And what you have in your hands is
14 a complete copy of that?
15 MS. GACHICH: It's a complete copy of that.
16 DR. FLEMAL: Thank you. I appreciate getting it
17 in the record. I think that will be useful for us.
18 A secondary question refers to Exhibit 1,
19 actually for several parts of the testimony that
20 you've submitted, but we can focus on it on Exhibit
21 1, and for the record, I'm referring to Ms.
22 Gachich's testimony, which is Exhibit 1 in the
23 record, and I'm referring to Exhibit 1 --
24 MS. GACHICH: Of Exhibit 1.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
25
1 DR. FLEMAL: -- to Exhibit 1.
2 I believe you had explained this, but for
3 my purposes, I just want to make sure I understand
4 it. You were required to do two samples per week --
5 MS. GACHICH: That's correct.
6 DR. FLEMAL: -- of
outfall 001 --
7 MS. GACHICH: That's correct.
8 DR. FLEMAL: -- under the current permit?
9 Those are composite samples --
10 MS. GACHICH: And those are 24-hour composites.
11 DR. FLEMAL: And -- okay. That was the question
12 whether that composite period is over 24 hours?
13 MS. GACHICH: It's a 24-hour composite.
14 DR. FLEMAL: So all the raw data that we're
15 looking at, the historical data for the ammonia
16 nitrogen discharges are basically from that data set
17 of the --
18 MS. GACHICH: That's correct.
19 DR. FLEMAL: -- two samples per week?
20 MS. GACHICH: Two samples per week of 24-hour
21 composites.
22 DR. FLEMAL: Fine. Thank you. That helps me on
23 that one. And the last area of questioning goes to
24 the last part of your testimony.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
26
1 You're referring to the flow of crude into
2 the plant and directed us to a series of tables that
3 are the last portions of Exhibit 1.
4 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Exhibit 8.
5 DR. FLEMAL: Exhibit 8 to Exhibit 1.
6 Could you, for the purposes of just making
7 sure we understand in the record, explain what the
8 captions to the various columns are, what the
9 abbreviations there stand for?
10 MS. GACHICH: Okay. All the way to the left of
11 this table on the first page, you will see crude
12 source, and we have crude source one, two, three,
13 four, and so on to 27.
14 What I have done, I have removed the
15 geological name of the crude, as you would be aware,
16 for proprietary reasons. The rest of the table
17 indicates -- the first column as we go to the right
18 indicates the concentration of the nitrogen in what
19 percent in parts per million of nitrogen in any
20 given of these
crudes.
21 So number one --
22 DR. FLEMAL: And that nitrogen -- excuse me.
23 The nitrogen can be in any form. It's --
24 MS. GACHICH: It can be any -- this is --
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
27
1 DR. FLEMAL: It's elemental nitrogen.
2 MS. GACHICH: You element the total nitrogen,
3 whatever the form may be. It could be variable, but
4 it's a total nitrogen, and say crude one is 879
5 parts per million, then the next column says barrels
6 per day, and it's a thousand barrels per day that we
7 have may have processed or just the barrels per
8 day. It gives the gravity of that crude, which also
9 is one of the qualities of crude that one measures
10 in the refinery.
11 DR. FLEMAL: When you say it gives the gravity
12 of the crude, I'm sorry to interrupt, but the column
13 headed API gives the --
14 MS. GACHICH: Stands for API gravity, which is
15 the measure of density of the crude using API,
16 American Petroleum Institute convention.
17 The next column says thousand pounds of
18 crude, which just converts the barrels of crude, and
19 this is a refining barrel, which is 42 gallons, and
20 you have the gravity of crude, which converts in
21 2,000 pounds of
crudes, and the last column then
22 gives you the pounds of nitrogen that would be found
23 in that amount of crude, and you can then see that
24 for different
crudes, each have different
gravities,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
28
1 and, of course, a different quantity of crude.
2 You can see that the amount of raw nitrogen
3 in a thousand pounds would be 247 and so on all the
4 way down to the bottom, which would add to about
5 3,027 pounds for
crudes processed in January of
6 1996.
7 DR. FLEMAL: The abbreviation L -- MLBS is
8 thousands of pounds?
9 MS. GACHICH: Yes. M stands for a thousand.
10 DR. FLEMAL: Thank you very much.
11 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you.
12 MR. RIESER: Ms.
Gachich, I just want to direct
13 you to a couple of your tables. Looking at Exhibit
14 Roman Numeral V to Exhibit 1 is BRU
15 influent/effluent LC 50
vs time. This is -- would
16 you describe what this is?
17 MS. GACHICH: As I mentioned previously in my
18 testimony, after Mobil installed Benzene Removal
19 Units, which is referred to here as BRU, we
20 experienced increase in toxicity to the waste water
21 treatment plant.
22 What this table shows is using the MICROTOX
23 analytical procedure, we were able to show that the
24 waste water going into the BRU unit was less toxic
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
29
1 than the water coming out of the BRU unit.
2 What I'd like to point out to you is that
3 the toxicity is inverse. So you can see that the
4 influent shows a higher number, but the lower number
5 indicates more toxicity, and you can see the two
6 lines here, and you have the white line indicating
7 the waste water that was flowing into the unit
8 showing lesser toxicity than the waste water flowing
9 out of the unit, which is the black solid line.
10 Further, what this table indicates all the
11 way to the right from June on of '96, there was a
12 shift altogether in both effluent and influent
13 toxicity in this unit.
14 We believe that this was due to
15 implementation of a benzene treatment unit, which
16 was changed from using a caustic to a caustic-free
17 method, and having found previously that the caustic
18 for this particular unit had effects on the waste
19 water plant and having implemented a completely
20 different process removing the particular stream
21 showed that there was a shift in toxicity, a
22 decrease in overall toxicity even though the
23 difference across the unit itself, the Benzene
24 Removal Unit, did not change, but the total toxicity
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
30
1 underlying the process has shifted downward, in
2 essence.
3 So implementing the particular unit did
4 help improve the waste water treatment overall, but
5 did not remove the existing toxicity that's created
6 in this unit.
7 MR. RIESER: And then looking at Exhibit Roman
8 Numeral VI and Exhibit Roman Numeral VII to your
9 Exhibit 1, this is -- is it correct that these are
10 graphic demonstrations of both the upset
exceedances
11 for which there is a known cause and
exceedances for
12 which there is no known cause?
13 MS. GACHICH: That's correct.
14 MR. RIESER: This will complete Ms.
Gachich's
15 testimony unless there are further questions
16 specifically for her, but, obviously, she's
17 available should other issues arise during the
18 course of the testimony of the other two witnesses.
19 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: All right. If you'd like to
20 go on with your next witness.
21 MR. RIESER: The next witness would be Dr. John
22 Koon.
23 Would you mark this as Exhibit 3, please?
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
31
1 (Exhibit No. 3 marked
2 for identification,
3 7-2-97.)
4 MR. RIESER: I guess we'll mark this as Exhibit
5 4 while we're at it.
6 (Exhibit No. 4 marked
7 for identification,
8 7-2-97.)
9 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Let the record reflect that
10 the document entitled Site-Specific Ammonia Relief
11 Petition Report for the Waste Water Treatment Plant
12 Mobil Oil Refinery, Joliet, Illinois, prepared by
13 Parsons Engineering Science has been marked as
14 Exhibit No. 3 and entered into the record.
15 On the bottom of the first page, it does
16 say Exhibit Roman Numeral VII, however, that will be
17 Exhibit No. 3 for the record.
18 And let the record reflect that the
19 testimony of John
Koon, K-o-o-n, will be marked as
20 Exhibit No. 4 for the record.
21 Mr.
Rieser?
22 MR. RIESER: Thank you.
23 Dr.
Koon, I'm going to show you what's been
24 marked as Exhibit 3 and ask if you can identify
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
32
1 that, please?
2 DR. KOON: Yes. That's the report that I
3 prepared for Mobil with respect to this hearing in
4 this matter.
5 MR. RIESER: And is Exhibit 3 a complete copy of
6 that report?
7 DR. KOON: Yes.
8 MR. RIESER: And was that report prepared under
9 your direction and supervision?
10 DR. KOON: Yes, it was.
11 MR. RIESER: Did you prepare testimony to
12 summarize for the Board, the -- this report that's
13 included as Exhibit 3?
14 DR. KOON: Yes, I did.
15 MR. RIESER: I'm going to show you what's been
16 marked as Exhibit 4, and ask you if that's your
17 testimony?
18 DR. KOON: Yes, it is.
19 MR. RIESER: And attached to that testimony as
20 an attachment is your -- the first attachment is a
21 CV that describes your background and experience?
22 DR. KOON: That's correct.
23 MR. RIESER: Could you briefly summarize your
24 testimony for us?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
33
1 WHEREUPON:
2 J O H N H. K O
O N,
3 called as a witness herein, having been first duly
4 sworn,
deposeth and saith as follows:
5 DR. KOON: I'd be glad to.
6 I was asked to work with the Mobil Refinery
7 in Joliet to evaluate the waste water treatment
8 system, specifically with regard to its ability to
9 remove ammonia and more specifically with respect to
10 meeting its ability to possibly meet the state of
11 Illinois ammonia discharge limitation.
12 I spent time at the refinery. I also spent
13 time in my offices evaluating data and records from
14 the refinery associated with the waste water
15 treatment system operation in writing this report
16 and developing the conclusions and recommendations
17 that are contained in it.
18 The report contains a description of the
19 waste water treatment system. It outlines the
20 several-unit processes that are included in the
21 treatment system, both at the site of the terminal
22 treatment system and some treatment units that are
23 located upstream, as we say, in some of the refining
24 units.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
34
1 I won't go through these unit processes at
2 this time unless there are specific questions,
3 except to say that first of all these are processes
4 that are applicable to the treatment of refinery
5 waste waters, and second to say that if you go
6 through the development document for the refining
7 industry, the development document as issued by the
8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and if you
9 look in this development document at the technology
10 that was used as the baseline for best available
11 treatment technology guidelines, these unit
12 processes comprise the same or meet the model used
13 by the EPA in developing BAT regulations.
14 That's not to say that this treatment
15 system would meet BAT regulations, but the
16 technologies employed are the same. In fact, the
17 refinery does meet BAT regulations, and I will cover
18 that in a few minutes.
19 Mobil has implemented a number of capital
20 improvement projects over the years. They've also
21 conducted studies to try and identify why the
22 nitrification process in the treatment system does
23 not provide complete nitrification on all occasions,
24 and I will further discuss this work that they've
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
35
1 done.
2 There's several modifications which Mobil
3 has made to the waste water treatment system over
4 the years. Since 1990, there have been six such
5 modifications that I have outlined in my testimony.
6 Let me briefly state what these are. The
7 installation of a Benzene Removal unit, number --
8 this is number one. Number two is upgrading of an
9 equalization basin to an aggressive biological
10 treatment unit as required to be in compliance with
11 RCRA regulations.
12 Let me go back and say that the Benzene
13 Removal Unit was required to be in -- for the
14 refinery to be in compliance with benzene NESHAPS,
15 and gee, how is that spelled, N-E-S-H-A-P-S, I
16 think. It's an acronym.
17 The number three modification was they
18 switched to a caustic-free gasoline treating unit,
19 which is named the
Merox unit, M-e-r-o-x.
20 Number four, they upgraded the aeration
21 basins -- a few aeration basins of the facility.
22 They upgraded these from surface aerators to
23 diffused aerators.
24 Number five, they completely upgraded the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
36
1 clarifiers that are used in the activated sludge
2 system.
3 Number six, they made extensive
4 modifications to a dissolved air flotation system in
5 the treatment unit, including adding additional
6 instrumentation controls and an upgraded air
7 dissolution system.
8 All of these processes or modifications
9 that have been made are consistent with either
10 meeting other regulations or updating and increasing
11 the level of performance that could be expected from
12 the treatment system, in this case, operating in an
13 oil petroleum refinery.
14 There's several laboratory studies that
15 have been conducted by Mobil to identify sources of
16 inhibition or the reasons why the nitrification
17 process in the refinery doesn't provide complete
18 nitrification at all times.
19 There are three of these studies that I
20 will mention briefly. Number one was a sour water
21 stripper tail unit investigation. Mobil looked at
22 developing a process that would remove inhibitory
23 substances from the effluent of the sour water
24 stripper.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
37
1 They conducted laboratory-scale tests that
2 proceeded to pilot-scale tests; however, the premise
3 behind the operation of this unit proved false. In
4 the pilot testing, the unit did not work as planned,
5 and, therefore, further development of it was not
6 pursued after they had gone through a fairly
7 extensive treatment process -- testing process.
8 The second investigation was a MICROTOX
9 study. Ms.
Gachich referred to this investigation
10 earlier. I will, therefore, only say that one of
11 the conclusions from it was that toxicity of waste
12 water to the nitrification process was increased
13 across the Benzene Removal Unit, and nothing was
14 identified that could be done about that, and, as I
15 said earlier, the BRU is required to be in
16 compliance with benzene NESHAP regulations.
17 The next investigation was an ammonia
18 inhibition study. This was conducted to see if 15
19 waste water streams that were -- that go into and
20 are treated in the waste water treatment plant might
21 be inhibitory or contain inhibitory substances to
22 the biological nitrification process and to evaluate
23 several parameters, operating parameters, in the
24 treatment system to see if they might be -- if the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
38
1 system might be operated in a way that would be
2 inhibitory to this process.
3 The principal finding of this investigation
4 was the degradation products apparently in the
5 biological treatment system were inhibitory to the
6 very process that one of the processes that we're
7 trying to sustain in the biological treatment
8 system, i.e., the biological nitrification process.
9 This would explain why certainly at times
10 the biological nitrification process does not
11 provide complete nitrification of its waste water.
12 It also explained that we had complete
13 nitrification. We completely removed ammonia from
14 the waste water and could comply with the three
15 milligram per liter state of Illinois standard.
16 That's the importance -- therefore the importance of
17 the nitrification process.
18 On Table 1 of my testimony, I've summarized
19 the costs of the investigations and projects that
20 Mobil has undertaken over the years in improving its
21 waste water treatment system. It's very similar to
22 a table in Ms.
Gachich's testimony with the
23 exception that we have -- in my testimony, I've also
24 identified a line for improvements made from 1973
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
39
1 through 1990. It was $2.1 million to the total, and
2 my table comes out just under $10 million, and I
3 think that accounts for any differences in the
4 numbers in those two tables.
5 We also conducted an evaluation of the
6 waste water treatment system to see if -- to develop
7 an opinion regarding the proper design and operation
8 of this system. Table 2 of my testimony contains an
9 evaluation of the removal efficiencies achieved for
10 relevant parameters in the waste water, and with
11 that evaluation, with -- by talking with operators
12 at the treatment system, by evaluating operating
13 manuals and design of the system, it's our
14 conclusion that the system is properly designed and
15 operated and is designed and operated in a way to
16 promote biological nitrification, but that it does
17 not consistently nitrify.
18 Based on this, it is our opinion that the
19 ammonia levels above the Illinois effluent standard
20 cannot be produced consistently within this
21 operation.
22 We compare this treatment system to
23 industry practices and guidelines. Table 3 in the
24 testimony summarizes the BAT requirements that the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
40
1 USEPA used as the basis of setting the BAT guideline
2 numbers, and in the right-hand column of Table 3, we
3 have summarized Mobil's practice with respect to
4 this BAT model technology and have found basically
5 that the Mobil Joliet system corresponds to the EPA
6 BAT model.
7 In Table 4 of my testimony, we compared the
8 effluent for the year 1996 from the Mobil Joliet
9 Refinery with BAT effluent guidelines established by
10 the USEPA, and in every case -- let's see. We
11 valued there are eight parameters for which limits
12 were established by the EPA. I believe there's
13 probably a ninth pH that we didn't put on here, but
14 for all eight listed in Table 4 and pH, the
15 treatment efficiency of the Mobil Joliet waste water
16 treatment system is well within the BAT limits
17 established by the USEPA. The system easily meets
18 the BAT requirements.
19 Mobil also looked at several alternative
20 treatment technologies and evaluated these
21 technologies to see if they might be applied at the
22 refinery to upgrade the treatment system in order to
23 achieve compliance with the state ammonia standard.
24 Basically, without going into details, I'll
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
41
1 say that none of these processes were found to be
2 applicable to the situation at the refinery for a
3 variety of reasons ranging from performance
4 shortfalls, unsuitability from the Joliet site, the
5 production of toxic by-products, or unreasonable
6 costs associated with the systems.
7 I then conclude by saying that based on our
8 findings, I have concluded that modification of the
9 treatment plan at the Mobil Joliet Refinery to
10 achieve compliance with the state of Illinois
11 ammonia standard is technically
infeasible and
12 economically unreasonable.
13 I'll be glad to answer any questions that
14 you have.
15 MR. RIESER: Thank you.
16 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr.
Koon.
17 DR. FLEMAL: Dr.
Koon, you characterize the
18 current discharge concentration of the Joliet
19 Refinery as being at, I believe, 3.9 milligrams per
20 liter.
21 Tell me what that number is based on? That
22 is --
23 DR. KOON: As I recall, if you take the average
24 discharge ammonia concentration for the year 1996,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
42
1 that average number is 3.9 milligrams per liter.
2 DR. FLEMAL: Is that the understanding of Mobil
3 generally that that's --
4 MS. GACHICH: Yes.
5 DR. FLEMAL: -- the basis of that number?
6 MS. GACHICH: That's the annual average.
7 DR. FLEMAL: And once more, that's the average
8 of the daily composite --
9 MS. GACHICH: Of the daily composite.
10 DR. FLEMAL: -- composite samples?
11 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you. Mr.
Rieser?
12 MR. RIESER: I will proceed with my next and
13 final witness.
14 Let's mark some of his exhibits. Would you
15 mark this as Exhibit 5 and this as Exhibit 6,
16 please?
17 (Exhibit Nos. 5 and 6
18 marked for identification,
19 7-2-97.)
20 MS. HOWARD: Do you have an extra copy of
21 Exhibit 6?
22 MR. RIESER: Yes, I do.
23 Mr. Huff, I'm going to show you what's been
24 marked as Exhibit 5 and ask if you can identify
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
43
1 that, please?
2 MR. HUFF: Yes, sir. This is a report we
3 prepared for Mobil Oil.
4 MR. RIESER: Okay. And that was prepared under
5 your supervision and direction?
6 MR. HUFF: That's correct.
7 MR. RIESER: Did you prepare testimony
8 summarizing the report for this hearing?
9 MR. HUFF: Yes, I did.
10 MR. RIESER: I'm going to show you what's been
11 marked as Exhibit 6 and ask you if that's a copy of
12 your testimony?
13 MR. HUFF: Yes, sir, it is.
14 MR. RIESER: Okay. And Exhibit 5 is a complete
15 copy of the report that you prepared?
16 MR. HUFF: Yes.
17 MR. RIESER: Okay. And Exhibit 6 contains an
18 attachment with your resume in it; is that correct?
19 MR. HUFF: Yes.
20 MR. RIESER: And that's current and up-to-date?
21 MR. HUFF: Yes, it is.
22 MR. RIESER: Could you summarize your testimony
23 for us, please?
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
44
1 WHEREUPON:
2 J A M E S E. H U F
F,
3 called as a witness herein, having been first duly
4 sworn,
deposeth and saith as follows:
5 MR. HUFF: Yes. I have a bachelor's of science
6 in chemical engineering from
Purdue University and a
7 master's of science in engineering from the
8 Environmental Engineering Department at
Purdue
9 University in 1971.
10 My first job was at the Mobil Oil Joliet
11 Refinery during the construction and start-up
12 phases, and included in that period of time, I spent
13 a six-week period as the area supervisor in charge
14 of the waste water treatment facility, and I spent
15 the entire two years basically responsible for
16 technical support of waste water treatment issues.
17 Since that time, I've had several other
18 jobs, all of which have involved some aspect of
19 either ammonia treatment or the impact of waste
20 water treatment discharges on receiving streams,
21 most of those throughout Illinois.
22 I was asked by Mobil to evaluate the impact
23 of its discharge on the Des Plaines River, and that
24 was what was marked as Exhibit 5, which was the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
45
1 report that came out of that. I'll briefly
2 summarize that report.
3 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Okay. Mr. Huff, I'm sorry.
4 Then I should go ahead and enter this into the
5 record then since you were marking -- my mistake.
6 Then we will enter into the record as
7 Exhibit No. 5 the study titled Plume Study and
8 Effluent Limit Derivations Report prepared by
9 Mr. Huff, and as Exhibit No. 6 into the record, the
10 testimony of Mr. Huff. Sorry.
11 MR. HUFF: Our primary focus was to go out and
12 do a mixing zone determination on the Des Plaines
13 River to determine how rapidly the discharge was
14 dispersed into the river.
15 Mobil's discharge is combined with once
16 through cooling water discharge
outfall 002, and
17 they go through a man-made channel, which is then
18 discharged into the Des Plaines River.
19 We went out and by tracking various
20 parameters, predominately chloride, which is a
21 conservative parameter, we were able to determine
22 that the available mixing inside the entire mixing
23 zone was sixty-three to one of Mobil's
outfall 001,
24 and that factors in
outfall 002 as well, which
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
46
1 represents approximately 77 percent of the flow out
2 the
outfall.
3 We then also followed the Plume further
4 down to the I-55 Bridge where the water quality
5 standards changed from a secondary contact water
6 standard to a general use standard, and what we
7 found is that at the I-55 Bridge, there was an
8 additional four-to-one dilution of Mobil's
outfall
9 between the edge of its mixing zone and the I-55
10 Bridge.
11 That additional four-to-one dilution, you
12 can take the existing secondary contact ammonia
13 water quality standard, the 0.1 milligrams per
14 liter, and say well, if you meet the
un-ionized
15 secondary contact standard at the edge of the mixing
16 zone, the .1, then the stream at the general use
17 standard will meet a .025 standard, which is the
18 winter general water quality standard for
un-ionized
19 ammonia.
20 So we concluded that any effluent limits
21 derived based on the secondary water quality
22 standard would also be protective of the general use
23 water quality standards as well.
24 Based on the mixing zone study that we did
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
47
1 and factoring in the Illinois EPA procedure of
2 taking the 75th percentile temperature and pH, we
3 back-calculated the appropriate effluent limits
4 based on being protective of water quality, and we
5 came out with a summer effluent limit of 70
6 milligrams per liter total ammonia and a winter
7 value of 243 milligrams per liter total ammonia.
8 We then went back and looked at their
9 existing effluent quality following a USEPA
10 publication called Technical Support Document that's
11 used to derive effluent limits based upon existing
12 effluent quality.
13 When we did that, we came up with a monthly
14 limit of nine milligrams per liter and a daily
15 maximum of 23 milligrams per liter. The nine
16 milligram per liter was based on strictly data since
17 Mobil upgraded the activated sludge operation as
18 being more representative of monthly average
19 conditions; whereas, the maximum limit was derived
20 back through data from 1992 because it's more
21 reflective of potential upsets that even the
22 upgrading is not going to be able to rectify
23 short-term upsets.
24 The third thing we did then was look at the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
48
1 existing NPDES permit limits, which were 13 and 26
2 milligrams per liter, and under the Clean Water Act
3 anti-backsliding provisions those also need to be
4 factored in.
5 Combining then all three of those, the one
6 that is most restrictive was the one derived based
7 on the existing effluent quality monthly average
8 ammonia limit of nine milligrams per liter and the
9 daily maximum limit of 23 milligrams per liter, and
10 those numbers, of course, are well below what the
11 water quality limits that we derived would have
12 been, effluent limits, and from that you can
13 conclude that the water quality is going to be
14 adequately protected with limits of nine monthly and
15 23 on a daily maximum.
16 These numbers reflect a 31 percent
17 reduction over their current 13 milligram per liter
18 monthly average limit and a 12 percent reduction in
19 the current daily maximum limit, which is 26
20 milligrams per liter.
21 The larger reduction in the monthly average
22 limit is attributable to the additional expenditures
23 that Mobil has done, which basically allows a system
24 to recover faster from upset provisions, but it's
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
49
1 not as effective on the short-term spikes, and
2 that's why you have less of a reduction along those
3 areas.
4 Just to summarize, the proposed effluent
5 limits to nine and 23 milligrams per liter we think
6 are -- based on our analysis, are adequate to
7 protect the Des Plaines River not only in the
8 secondary contact water area where Mobil discharges
9 into, but also further downstream where it goes into
10 a general use standard below the I-55 Bridge. Thank
11 you.
12 MR. RIESER: Mr. Huff, did you -- as part of
13 your work in preparing the study that's in Exhibit
14 5, did you have occasion to review and evaluate
15 water quality data for this reach of the Des Plaines
16 River?
17 MR. HUFF: Yes, we did.
18 MR. RIESER: Okay. What did you look at
19 specifically?
20 MR. HUFF: We -- the most applicable data we
21 could find was from the Metropolitan Water
22 Reclamation District Study that was done in 1989 and
23 1990.
24 The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
50
1 collected samples right at the I-55 Bridge
2 immediately downstream of Mobil, and, basically,
3 they found in the summer months a 0.7 milligram per
4 liter total ammonia, a quite low total ammonia
5 number.
6 Our concern was that that data was somewhat
7 outdated now because of the improvements that have
8 been done by other discharges, primarily the
9 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District.
10 So we recommended to Mobil that they
11 institute a program of collecting water quality data
12 at the I-55 Bridge, and Mobil did that from March
13 1996 to September '96 and collected approximately
14 two samples a week over that period, and they found
15 a monthly average number of 0.3 milligrams per
16 liter, which is down over 50 percent from the '89
17 and '90 data that the Water Reclamation District
18 collected.
19 In fact, for the five months from May to
20 September, the highest ammonia that they found in
21 the river during that period of time was .3
22 milligrams per liter.
23 When we were out in October of '96 doing
24 the mixing zone in late October, October 29th, the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
51
1 upstream ammonia of the six samples we collected was
2 0.1 milligrams per liter, quite low.
3 DR. FLEMAL: May I just interrupt here? You're
4 talking about total ammonia nitrogen, not
5 un-ionized?
6 MR. HUFF: That's correct. Those are total
7 ammonia values. The
un-ionized ammonias that those
8 correspond to are down basically at
9 the .00-something values. They're quite low.
10 So we basically concluded from that then
11 that the ammonia levels in the Des Plaines River are
12 currently well in compliance with the applicable
13 water quality standards and has been and the levels
14 appear to be further improved over the last five
15 years.
16 MR. RIESER: Thank you, Mr. Huff.
17 DR. FLEMAL: I have a series of questions, if I
18 might. As long as we've already touched on this
19 issue of the distinction between total ammonia
20 nitrogen and
un-ionized ammonia nitrogen, perhaps we
21 can clarify something else as well.
22 The data that you're talking about in terms
23 of the effluent discharge levels are all in terms of
24 total ammonia nitrogen; is that correct?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
52
1 MR. HUFF: That's correct. In the case of the
2 water quality derived values, they were based on
3 achieving the .1 milligram per liter
un-ionized
4 ammonia water quality standard and then factoring in
5 the pH and temperature calculating a stream ammonia
6 total ammonia value and then factoring in the
7 available dilution back-calculating into the
8 effluent total ammonia value.
9 DR. FLEMAL: You went through all of those steps
10 to determine whether or not the contribution from
11 the Joliet Refinery from Mobil to that .025
12 milligrams per liter
un-ionized ammonia?
13 MR. HUFF: Well, we did it to the .1, which is
14 the secondary contact water quality standard, but
15 then our mixing zone showed that we had a further
16 four-to-one dilution from the edge of the mixing
17 zone to the I-55 Bridge where the .025 winter
18 standard
un-ionized ammonia would kick in.
19 DR. FLEMAL: And assuming that there was -- that
20 ammonia remained conservative over that additional
21 distance as well?
22 MR. HUFF: Right. So we concluded that the
23 recommended values, in this case, the water quality
24 one, would be equally protective of not only the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
53
1 secondary contact, but the general use downstream of
2 the I-55 Bridge.
3 DR. FLEMAL: Could you run through for us for
4 the record the distances that are involved? I think
5 there's several critical distances here. The
6 distance from the actual point of
outfall of the
7 effluent to the Des Plaines River and then from the
8 Des Plaines River to the I-55 Bridge?
9 MR. HUFF: These would be an approximate. We
10 have in our Exhibit 5 our report a Figure 4-1 that
11 has a scale of one inch equals 200 feet, and you can
12 see the mixing zone. The
dilutions of fifty to one
13 are basically shown on there. So the I-55 Bridge
14 appears to be approximately a thousand feet
15 downstream of where the
outfall is.
16 DR. FLEMAL: Now, the
outfall you're referring
17 to is the entry of the water into the Des Plaines
18 River in the main or where the pipe -- in the pipe?
19 MR. HUFF: Well, yes.
20 DR. FLEMAL: Or is there a difference even?
21 MR. HUFF: Yes, there is. In the pipe, we
22 treated basically the
outfall channel as part of the
23 discharge pipe, if you will. It was a man-made
24 channel installed basically to carry the effluents.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
54
1 So we -- the discharge into the river was
2 right where the
outfall channel stopped, if you
3 will.
4 DR. FLEMAL: If you'd like, on your Figure 4-1,
5 that's at the boathouse position?
6 MR. HUFF: That's correct.
7 DR. FLEMAL: How far up-channel from the
8 boathouse is the end of the pipe?
9 MR. HUFF: It's approximately where the word
10 outfall channel is located on the figure.
11 DR. FLEMAL: And by scale, I would then guess
12 that to be 150 feet or so?
13 MR. HUFF: Right.
14 MS. GACHICH: One hundred and fifty feet.
15 DR. FLEMAL: Okay. You refer to the mixing zone
16 associated with this discharge in a number of
17 places, both in your report and in your testimony.
18 Is there, in fact, a mixing zone that has
19 been determined as part of the NPDES permit?
20 MR. HUFF: Not to my knowledge.
21 DR. FLEMAL: There is not?
22 MR. HUFF: I believe our study was intended to
23 do the necessary fieldwork to establish the mixing
24 zone.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
55
1 DR. FLEMAL: So to the extent that a mixing zone
2 is a formal construct in the NPDES permit, it
3 doesn't exist, you're instead using that term to
4 talk about what kind of an area might be available
5 for mixing?
6 MR. HUFF: It's my understanding that when
7 effluent limits are derived, there are various
8 considerations. One is to water quality impact.
9 One is existing effluent quality. Another is the
10 existing permit limits. So -- and then you take the
11 most restrictive of those three.
12 So the mixing zone is relevant when you're
13 addressing the water quality impacts, and that's
14 exactly what we did.
15 DR. FLEMAL: Okay. I have at least one
16 additional question, but I'm not sure to whom this
17 is best directed.
18 Mr.
Rieser, you might want to appoint
19 someone to --
20 MR. RIESER: Whoever jumps up and answers it, I
21 suppose.
22 DR. FLEMAL: Yeah, give somebody the
23 responsibility on this one.
24 In terms of effectuating your proposal,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
56
1 which you do through -- would do through, in effect,
2 reactivating a section that, although is still part
3 of the corpus of the Board's regulations, has ceased
4 to apply because it expired. That would be Section
5 304.214.
6 I noticed that one of the things that you
7 would do is replace the term daily composite with
8 daily maximum.
9 Can you explain for me what the
10 significance of making that change is, if any?
11 MS. GACHICH: I believe if you look at the
12 regulations, the definition is daily maximum. It
13 does not refer to it as a daily composite. I
14 believe that's why the change was made, and then
15 there is a further requirement that says that the
16 sample shall be a composite, but I believe it comes
17 from the regulation itself.
18 DR. FLEMAL: There's certainly no intention upon
19 your part then, I gather, to characterizing it as a
20 daily grab sample or something?
21 MS. GACHICH: No, no. The intention is not
22 there, but I believe that that was to make a
23 congruent definition in the regulation.
24 MR. RIESER: I think the regulations tend to
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
57
1 speak in terms of daily maximums, and the maximum is
2 defined.
3 MS. GACHICH: As a composite sample or some
4 other variety. They didn't make that --
5 MR. RIESER: Yeah. There is no intention to
6 change the method of compiling the information.
7 DR. FLEMAL: I had assumed that that was the
8 case, but I thought that perhaps we ought to have
9 the record reflect that.
10 MR. RIESER: Absolutely.
11 DR. FLEMAL: Whether we have an answer to this
12 area of inquiry fully today or not, let me just
13 observe for you that under the Board's regulations
14 at Section 304.104, which is the averaging principle
15 for effluent standards, that's on Page 30 of the
16 March 1995 version of the regulations, the daily
17 sampling are generally referred to there as
18 composites rather than as maximums, and whether
19 that's meaningful in terms of what we're dealing
20 with now or not I don't know, but I do point you to
21 that for your own thought to see whether or not, in
22 fact, we are headed on the right course to make the
23 replacements that you suggest.
24 MR. RIESER: I note that other -- just flipping
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
58
1 through, I believe this is consistent, that other
2 site-specific regulations, and I'm looking at
3 304.211, refer to daily maximum.
4 That may have been that this was done at a
5 time in 1988 where there was just a usage change,
6 but there's no intention to establish a different
7 methodology of evaluating how a maximum value is
8 derived.
9 DR. FLEMAL: I expect that over time we've
10 simply used these terms in vogue periods, and it's
11 nothing more profound than that, but just to make
12 sure that we understand, in fact, what it is that
13 the daily sample would be, whether that remains the
14 composite that we've been talking about or is
15 intended to be some other kind of sample.
16 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Does the Agency have any
17 questions for the Mobil witnesses?
18 MS. HOWARD: No, we don't.
19 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: No. Are there any questions
20 from any members of the audience on any of the
21 testimony that was given today? No. Okay.
22 MR. RIESER: It's certainly our intention that
23 the value -- the permit requires composite sampling
24 and will be continued to require composite sampling,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
59
1 continue to perform composite sampling, and
2 certainly this value, this daily value, should be in
3 terms of a composite.
4 It would be expected to be in terms of a
5 composite sample rather than a grab sample because
6 that's how the purpose is and that's how those
7 things are gathered.
8 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you, Mr.
Rieser.
9 Would you like to add anything else to any
10 testimony?
11 MR. RIESER: I have nothing further. We have --
12 that concludes our presentation. We have nothing
13 further unless there are further questions.
14 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Okay. Seeing no further
15 questions --
16 MR. RIESER: And I'd like to move for admission
17 of the exhibits at this time if they've not already
18 been admitted.
19 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: They have been admitted.
20 Exhibits 1 through 6 have been admitted into the
21 record properly.
22 Does the Agency wish to present any
23 testimony at this time?
24 MS. HOWARD: Not at this time. With respect to
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
60
1 Dr.
Flemal's comments, we'll also take a look at
2 that, and if we feel that there might be something
3 we need to clear up, we might submit something later
4 in writing during the comment period.
5 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: With regard to the sampling
6 and the composite sampling?
7 MS. HOWARD: Right, the composite versus the
8 daily maximum. We'll just double-check it all so...
9 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Howard.
10 DR. FLEMAL: As long as we're talking about
11 vogues and writing things, I don't even know if we
12 should put this on the record, but we're all friends
13 here, so let's do it.
14 There has been a tendency that any time we
15 use a verb in writing any regulations, the verb is
16 shall. Everything shall be this, shall be that, and
17 there's certain questions to whether that's a
18 grammatically correct way to do things.
19 I'm wondering whether the assembled crew
20 here has reflection on whether when we and if we do
21 move this rule forward we might go back and change
22 some of the
shalls that we inserted in this rule in
23 19-whatever when it was first adopted, 1988, I
24 guess.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
61
1 I would refer to example Subsection B. It
2 says the requirements of Section 304.122(b) shall
3 not apply. I think we say that they do or they
4 don't apply, but we can hardly order them to mandate
5 them to do something since the requirements
6 themselves are inadequate.
7 I would propose that maybe we might do some
8 grammatical dressing up of this.
9 MR. RIESER: My recollection as someone who has
10 some experience in writing regulations is that the
11 Secretary of State's Rules on Rules Joint Committee
12 administrative rules practices require certain terms
13 and prohibits certain adjectives and adverbs and
14 things like that.
15 So I suspect the use of shall is a holdover
16 of the certain limitations on the language that they
17 tend to impose. I think grammatically you may be
18 right, and it may be a more appropriate way to say
19 things, but there may be, as there are in so many
20 things, rules about it that ought to be consulted.
21 DR. FLEMAL: I think the Board over time I think
22 has been as guilty as anybody in the rulemaking game
23 for, what I consider, an overuse of shall when we
24 say something shall mean this or shall mean that.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
62
1 It either does or it doesn't, and we can hardly
2 order it to have meaning I think.
3 At any rate, it's a small matter. As I
4 said, I probably doubt it was worth having been put
5 on the record, but I will look at the proposed
6 language here and see if maybe some changes of that
7 sort shall be in order.
8 MR. RIESER: Certainly.
9 MS. LOZUK-LAWLESS: Thank you. Are there any
10 members of the public who wish to give testimony
11 today?
12 Seeing none then, I would like to remind
13 everyone that the record in this matter will close
14 on July 28th, and, as I mentioned earlier, if you
15 plan to file any additional filings or material with
16 the Board, please do reference docket number R97-28.
17 As Dr.
Flemal had mentioned earlier, the
18 Board anticipates it may move on this matter during
19 one of its August board meetings, so if that gives
20 you a timetable, not seeing any further difficulty.
21 And are there any other matters which
22 anyone would like to address on the record? No.
23 All right. Then seeing none then, this matter and
24 this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
63
1 (Whereupon, these were all the
2 proceedings had in the above
3 entitled-matter.)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
64
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS.
2 COUNTY OF C O
O K )
3
4 I, GEANNA M. PIGNONE-IAQUINTA, do
5 hereby state that I am a court reporter doing
6 business in the City of Chicago, County of
7 Cook, and State of Illinois; that I reported
8 by means of machine shorthand the proceedings
9 held in the foregoing cause, and that the
10 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of
11 my shorthand notes so taken as aforesaid.
12
13
14 __________________________
Geanna M. Pignone-Iaquinta
15 Notary Public, Cook County, IL
Illinois License No. 084-004096
16
17
18 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
before me
this_____day
19 of__________, A.D., 1997.
20
___________________________
21 Notary Public
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292