STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS.
COUNTY OF C O
O K )
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
PETITION OF PDV MIDWEST ) R 98-14
REFINING, L.L.C. )
)
TO AMEND REGULATIONS )
PERTAINING TO WATER POLLUTION )
The following is the transcript of a hearing held in
the above-entitled matter, taken
stenographically by
GEANNA M. IAQUINTA, CSR, a notary public within and for
the County of Cook and State of Illinois, before John C.
Knittle, Hearing Officer, at 14 West Jefferson Street,
Joliet, Illinois, on the 6th day of March, 1998,
A.D.,
commencing at 1:00 o'clock p.m.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
2
A P P E A R A N C E S:
HEARING TAKEN BEFORE:
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 814-6923
BY: MR. JOHN C. KNITTLE
SONNENSCHEIN, NATH & ROSENTHAL,
8000 Sears Tower
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 876-2380
BY: MR. JEFFREY C. FORT
- and -
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION,
P.O. Box 3758
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102
(918) 495-5548
BY: MS. DANA A. BURCH
Appeared on behalf of PDV Midwest Refining,
L.L.C.,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794
(217) 524-3157
BY: MR. CHARLES W. GUNNARSON, MR. STEVEN E. VANCE,
and MR. SCOTT A. TWAIT
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dr. Ronald C.
Flemal, Ph.D
Mr. Robert
O'Brien
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
3
I N D E X
PAGES
GREETING BY HEARING OFFICER................... 4
GREETING BY RONALD FLEMAL..................... 5
OPENING STATEMENT OF JEFFREY FORT............. 6
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHARLES GUNNARSON........ 7
TESTIMONY OF CLAUDE HARMON.................... 8
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION.................. 10
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT STEIN.................... 16
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION.................. 18
TESTIMONY OF JAMES HUFF...................... 24
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION.................. 26
CLOSING COMMENTS BY HEARING OFFICER.......... 42
E X H I B I T S
Marked for
Identification
Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 1-5...... 4
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
4
(Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 1-5
marked for identification,
prior to the commencement of
the deposition, 3-6-98.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: As everybody already
knows, my name is John
Knittle. I'm the hearing officer
in this proceeding entitled In The Matter Of Petition Of
PDV Midwest Refining, L.L.C. to amend 35 Illinois
Administrative Code 304.123.
Sitting next to me is Dr. Ron
Flemal, the presiding
Board member at this hearing, and also with us today from
the Pollution Control Board is Mr. Rob
O'Brien from the
technical unit.
This is the first hearing for this proceeding. The
petition in this proceeding was filed on October 17th,
1997. We are in courtroom 100 of the Will County
Courthouse here in Joliet, Illinois, and I do not think
there are any members of the public present.
If there is anybody here not affiliated with a private
party if they can identify themselves now. There is
not. So no members of the public are currently present.
I do have a service list along with copies of all the
prefiled testimony up front which everybody is welcome
to, but I think everybody has a copy of that that is on
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
5
the service list.
Okay. The order of the hearing that we're going to
conduct today is we're going to have an opening statement
by both sides, we're going to swear in the witnesses, and
they're going to, apparently, read their testimony that's
been prefiled.
After that, we will allow questions by both the Board
and the other party and any members of the public that
may show up in the interim.
That being said, I think I'd like to introduce Dr. Ron
Flemal. Do you have any opening statements?
DR. FLEMAL: Nothing other than just to welcome
everybody, and I would note as well that the Board Member
of record in this proceeding is Board member Joseph
Yi.
Some of you may be aware that Joe has had a recent bout
of illness which prevents him from being with us today.
The good news is that he's recovering well, and we
hope to have him back in full force and energy at the
Board real soon, and my assumption is that he will come
back and begin to take reigns on this proceeding just as
soon as he can.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Dr.
Flemal. I
would echo your sentiments about Mr.
Yi.
Well, does the attorney for PDV have an opening
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
6
statement that you'd like to make?
MR. FORT: Well, my name is Jeff Fort. I'm
here with Ms. Dana
Burch, Esquire. We're counsel for PDV
in this proceeding. I don't think there's a necessity
for any extensive opening statement here.
I would note that the reason that we are before the
Board at this time is due to a transfer in ownership of
the refinery which was previously known as the Union Oil
Company Refinery, UNO-VEN, and now is owned by PDV
Midwest Refining, L.L.C. as you've noted.
Because of that transfer in ownership, we felt it was
appropriate to change the rule and, of course, once we
start with that process, we get back into
rejustifying
the limitations and the conditions that are part of that
rule.
We have done so, and in doing that process, we've
talked with the Agency about the conditions of the site
specific rule and we've looked at various ways of
analyzing the situation and find that the existing limits
are the most conservative approach to the circumstances
existing for the refinery.
We will have three witnesses today; Mr. Claude Harmon,
Dr. Robert Stein, and Mr. James Huff. We have
prefiled
their testimony. We also have the two technical reports
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
7
done by Dr. Stein and Mr. Huff, and we will also
introduce those as exhibits here.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Fort.
Is there anyone from the Agency who would like to
speak at this time?
MR. GUNNARSON: Yes, just briefly. My name is
Charles Gunnarson. I'm assistant counsel with IEPA, and
for the record just to note, as was already noted in our
prefiled testimony filed in this matter, in general we do
not have any objections with the petition filed by PDV in
this matter.
One matter that we did raise, which is described in
our prefiled testimony, related to the length of the
relief requested here and a feeling that, perhaps, some
limit to that length of the relief should be looked at by
the Board, and I, on behalf of IEPA, filed
prefiled
testimony on that matter, and if the Board or any member
of the public or PDV so wishes, we can
reattest or
further explain our
prefiled testimony at the proper
time.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
I'd just like to note right now as well when I
initially introduced this matter, I noted that we were
looking to amend 35 Illinois Administrative Code 304.123,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
8
but I'd like to correct that. It is actually 304.213,
and I just wanted to make that clear for the record one
final time.
At this point, PDV, would you like to call any
witnesses?
MR. FORT: Yes. We'd like to call Mr. Claude
Harmon.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Harmon, if you could
come up and have a seat.
Can you swear him in for us?
(Witness sworn.)
WHEREUPON:
C L A U D E H A R M O N,
called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn,
deposeth and saith as follows:
E X A M I N A T I O N
by Mr. Fort
Q. Would you state your name for the record, please?
A. Claude William Harmon, Jr.
Q. Mr. Harmon, I would show you what we've already
marked as Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and ask if that is your
prefiled testimony in this matter?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And it's true and correct to the best of your
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
9
knowledge and belief?
A. Yes, it is.
MR. FORT: Mr. Hearing Officer, I would ask
that this -- Mr.
Harmon's testimony be introduced into
the record as if read.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Are there any
objections to this testimony being entered as if read?
MR. GUNNARSON: None from my view.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Seeing none, it will be
so admitted.
MR. FORT: Thank you. I have one further
question for Mr. Harmon.
BY MR. FORT:
Q. Mr. Harmon, you're familiar with the petition in
this matter?
A. Yes.
Q. And you've read that petition?
A. Yes.
Q. There are factual assertions made in that petition
concerning the transfer in ownership from UNO-VEN to PDV
Midwest.
Are you familiar with those assertions?
A. Yes.
Q. Are they true and correct?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
10
A. Yes.
MR. FORT: I have no further questions.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. Can we go off
the record for one second?
(Discussion had
off the record.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: I note that a member of
the public has walked in today.
Sir, can you identify yourself for the record,
please?
MR. SIMON: My name is Bill Simon with Mobil
Oil.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much. And
I've noted that you have no objection to entering the
testimony as if read?
MR. SIMON: Yes.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Were there any
questions at this point for the first witness, Claude
Harmon? Any from the Agency?
MR. GUNNARSON: None from the Agency.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Bob, do you have any
questions?
MR. O'BRIEN: The way I've commenced these
questions are basically per witness, but if anybody else
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
11
who is here to testify today needs to jump in or has
anything to add, feel free to just -- anybody can jump in
at any time as far as the witnesses that are here.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Of course, we want the
witnesses sworn in before they jump in if that makes.
MR. O'BRIEN: Okay. The IEPA has proposed
limiting the exception to ten years. This would equal
two full cycles of the NPDES permit.
During that time, is it not possible that an
advancement in technology or the process changes would
enable your facility to comply with the standards of 35
IEC 304.122?
MR. HARMON: I guess I can't say that it's --
MR. FORT: Let me jump in here. When you're
citing to the regulation, you're talking about the three
milligrams per liter?
MR. O'BRIEN: Right. Correct.
MR. FORT: And the question is, is it
possible?
MR. O'BRIEN: Well, yeah. I guess -- I mean,
maybe that's a little too vague.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Go ahead. Answer it to
the best of your ability.
MR. HARMON: Well, the answer is it's
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
12
possible. There's no way that I can say it's not
possible. All I can say is that, you know, we've been at
this for about 20, 25 years and nothing has developed yet
that would help us beat that on a consistent basis.
MR. O'BRIEN: On pages five through seven of
your testimony, you have listed a number of instances
where the higher organic
loadings have caused an upset at
the treatment plant resulting in higher ammonia
concentration in the effluent.
What measures are being addressed to -- are being
implemented to address the occasions of higher
loadings?
MR. HARMON: Improved preventative maintenance
programs basically.
MR. O'BRIEN: Do you believe that your
treatment plant includes adequate equalization time?
Do you believe that your plant includes adequate
equalization time to avoid plant upsets caused by the
higher organic
loadings?
MR. HARMON: Well, Dr. Stein, he could probably
talk about that a little more directly when he gets the
opportunity, but I think yeah, from a reasonable --
reasonably engineered standpoint, yes.
MR. O'BRIEN: Is it possible to predict the
instances of higher organic
loadings at all?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
13
MR. HARMON: Not really.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Can I jump in for a
second, Bob?
MR. O'BRIEN: Sure.
THE HEARING OFFICER: You said what measures
are being implemented when he asked you to address the
occasional higher organic
loadings, and I think you
replied preventative maintenance, you improved your
preventative maintenance?
MR. HARMON: Yes.
THE HEARING OFFICER: How have you improved
it? Do you have a schedule set out, or do you have
specific items in there that you're looking to improve?
MR. HARMON: I guess specifically the sour
water strippers and the schedule of turnaround and
maintenance for those particularly has been improved, and
they've got a lot more attention over the years, and
that, to me, is the heart of the program. If you keep
those things on-line and operating efficiently, you avoid
a lot of upsets at the wastewater treatment plant.
THE HEARING OFFICER: So that's the majority of
what you're talking about when you're discussing --
MR. HARMON: Preventative maintenance programs.
THE HEARING OFFICER: -- preventative
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
14
maintenance, right?
MR. HARMON: That's correct.
MR. O'BRIEN: On page eight of your
prefiled
testimony, you note that one of the requirements of the
site specific rule is the monitoring of the nitrogen
concentrations of the refinery
feedstock.
Does the chemical makeup of the
feedstock make a huge
difference in the amount of nitrogen loading, and, if so,
please explain how such information, the monitoring of
it, would be used to optimize the treatment of the
wastewater.
MR. HARMON: Once again, I think Jim Huff can
address that a little more directly when he gets the
opportunity, but it doesn't make a huge difference. It
makes a difference on the nitrogen loading for the
wastewater treatment plant.
MR. FORT: I would just like to note for the
record that that condition in particular was one that the
Board placed in, I believe, the original petition for
informational purposes. It was something that was
thought to be helpful at the time.
I believe I can fairly characterize this witness'
testimony in that we're not sure that that really
advances the knowledge base very much. That's been our
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
15
experience over the last ten years.
MR. HARMON: We've handled a variety of
feedstocks, and, you know, it doesn't seem to make a big
difference in the wastewater treatment plant.
MR. O'BRIEN: Does the type of product that
you're making on any given day or week make a huge
difference?
MR. HARMON: No.
MR. O'BRIEN: That's basically all I have.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Bob, do you have any
further questions for this witness?
MR. O'BRIEN: No, I don't.
THE HEARING OFFICER: You may step down unless
anybody has any follow-up questions.
Mr. Fort.
MR. FORT: I would like to call our next
witness, Dr. Robert Stein.
MR. STEIN: It's not doctor.
MR. FORT: Sorry.
MR. STEIN: I didn't want anybody --
MR. FORT: Off the record.
(Discussion had
off the record.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Stein, if you'd have
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
16
a seat, please. Can you swear the witness in?
(Witness sworn.)
WHEREUPON:
R O B E R T S T E I N,
called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn,
deposeth and saith as follows:
E X A M I N A T I O N
by Mr. Fort
Q. Would you state your name for the record, please?
A. Robert M. Stein.
Q. And, Mr. Stein, you've prepared testimony in this
matter, which we've marked as Exhibit 2?
A. Yes.
Q. And to correct the record here, you also have your
vitae attached to that testimony?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Thank you. Is your testimony true and correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And it's also based upon your professional
expertise?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. I'll also show you what we've marked as
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, which is a final report. Did
you prepare that or was that report prepared under your
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
17
supervision and direction?
A. I both prepared it and part of it was under my
supervision.
Q. And that reflects your conclusions with respect to
the treatment options for the PDV Refinery?
A. Yes, it does.
MR. FORT: With this witness, I'd also ask that
the narrative part of his testimony be introduced into
the transcript as if read, but we do have some
attachments to it that, you know, merit keeping this as
an exhibit as well. So I'd ask Exhibits 2 and 3 be
admitted.
THE HEARING OFFICER: As if read?
MR. FORT: Exhibit 2 admitted as if read, the
narrative part of it, and then the combined -- the
entirety of Exhibit 2 be admitted and also Exhibit 3 be
admitted.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Are there any objections
to these exhibits being so admitted?
MR. GUNNARSON: No.
THE HEARING OFFICER: The exhibits are
admitted.
MR. FORT: I have no further questions of this
witness.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
18
THE HEARING OFFICER: Is there anyone present
who has any questions of this witness?
MR. GUNNARSON: No.
DR. FLEMAL: Mr. Stein, I note that in your
prefiled testimony you characterize this as In The Matter
Of The Petition Of
Citgo where we otherwise have the
matter characterized as Petition Of PDV Midwest
Refining.
At this point, I just thought it would be useful if
you could clarify that. I expect it will be noted by
many members of the Board that we're using slightly
different names here.
MR. FORT: Thank you. That is a mistake on our
part. The rule change is being sought on behalf of PDV
Midwest Refining.
Under a contract between PDV,
Citgo is providing the
operational facilities and activities to run the
refinery, but the rule change we felt was more properly
stated in terms of the owner of the refinery rather than
the person who right now has the contract to provide
facilities -- to provide personnel.
DR. FLEMAL: Thank you. That's all.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr.
O'Brien, do you have
any questions for the witness?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
19
MR. O'BRIEN: I have a couple.
Based on your experience in the removal from the
refinery -- from the refinery wastewater, are you aware
of any other refinery wastewater treatment plants that
are currently meeting the standard of three milligrams
per liter or lower?
MR. STEIN: Not on a consistent basis, no.
MR. O'BRIEN: Okay. Page eight of your
testimony notes that even though the treatment plant at
the Lemont Refinery has been operated at conditions that
are optimum to achieve a biological nitrification, this
system has been unable to provide consistent biological
nitrification.
Please comment on whether the
Lemont Refinery
treatment plant was designed to meet the standards of the
three milligrams per liter.
MR. STEIN: I'm not sure of the original
design, but, I mean, it's operating under the conditions
and conditions for nitrification are pH, alkalinity, low
F/M, adequate oxygen, and sludge age.
Sludge age, theoretically, for this type of waste you
need a sludge age of more than ten days. In many cases,
we've got sludge ages in excess of 100 days. F/M, you
want to have F/M, which is a food to mass ratio or pound
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
20
BOD per pound of MLSS, which is your organisms, you want
to be less than .3 and consistently less than that.
For nitrification, you want a pH of about seven to 85,
and we normally have a good pH temperature of greater
than 68 degrees seeing they actually -- for winter
operation, actually we'll add heat, if necessary, to make
sure that it's consistently above.
So all the conditions are there to maintain biological
nitrification or what we see should achieve biological
nitrification, but you don't -- you find that we will
nitrify for a good period of time, but at times it does
not consistently nitrify.
MR. O'BRIEN: Can you discuss reasons why
that's happened -- that's been happening?
MR. STEIN: Not really. I mean, that's what
we've been studying, and, you know, we've never figured
out, you know, why. I think it's, you know, some of the
inherent variability of just the type of waste that we're
dealing with that you get some variability in treatment.
MR. O'BRIEN: Going back to -- I believe you
said that the type of product that you're making on any
given day doesn't matter at all?
MR. STEIN: Not really because, I mean, if you
look at the treatment, you know, you've got a fairly well
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
21
mixture of organisms in the system that are able to
handle, you know, the nature of the petroleum waste and
the effluent quality remains fairly consistent even for
all, you know, normal changes in, you know, product mix
and everything.
MR. O'BRIEN: Does the nitrogen -- ammonia
nitrogen loading going into the wastewater treatment
facility, is that pretty constant or does that vary
greatly?
MR. STEIN: No, it's relatively constant.
MR. O'BRIEN: That's about all I have.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Stein, the previous
witness, Mr. Harmon, had suggested that you might be
better able to talk about Mr.
O'Brien's previous question
as to whether or not the treatment plant includes
adequate equalization time to avoid plant upsets --
MR. STEIN: Yes.
THE HEARING OFFICER: -- caused by the higher
organic loadings.
Would you discuss that issue?
MR. STEIN: Yes. There is two -- I think it's
a 4.6 million gallon equalization basin which is over
four and a half days equalization which is really more
than normal for industrial treatment plants.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
22
So you've got, you know, very good equalization that
you're going to definitely dampen out the variability of
the waste. You'll find many industrial facilities have
less than, you know, one-day equalization, and the
refineries that I'm familiar with have less than that.
So I'm not sure. I forget if it's four-fourths or
four and a half, I mean, days to bench time, but there's
definitely more than -- more than enough equalization.
THE HEARING OFFICER: In your opinion, it's
adequate to avoid any plant upsets caused by the higher
organic loadings then?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Are there any other
questions for this witness?
MR. GUNNARSON: No.
MR. FORT: Just one clarification question for
the record. I know the Board knows this very well, but
we might as well put this up.
F U R T H E R E X A M I N A T I O N
by Mr. Fort
Q. Mr. Stein, would you talk about how the
sensitivity of the nitrifying organisms and what happens
if you have some sort of upset condition and, you know,
just how quickly you can reestablish nitrification then
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
23
for such an upset?
A. Yeah. I guess the key thing here is that you've
got -- in your waste treatment system, you've got two
types of organisms, your carbonaceous organisms which
really treat the organic waste, the BOD, COD, and the
nitrifiers.
The nitrifiers are an extremely sensitive organism so
that many of times you can produce effluent
BODs. In
fact, you'll see in the refinery waste less than ten
parts per million, yet have a variability in the ammonia,
and the nitrifiers are just an extremely sensitive thing,
and, you know, that's a problem you have with many of the
nitrifying facilities of these organisms.
There is just a wide range of things, temperature
being among them, F/M, and what we've tried to do is
control the ones we know about.
MR. O'BRIEN: Is that basically your biggest
problem right now is trying to maintain a consistent
organic ability to nitrify?
MR. STEIN: Well, normally, everything is okay,
but there seems to be times where, for unknown reasons,
we lose nitrification, and what happens is once you've
lost nitrification, it is much more difficult to bring it
back.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
24
In other words, if you lose carbonaceous removal, I've
seen plants that within a day or two that they're brought
back, but I've seen, especially in the colder weather in
the northern climates where I know of one chemical plant
that I work with up in, you know, western Illinois where
you lost nitrification and it took the next spring or
late spring to bring it back.
So where it could take days or weeks to recover from a
carbonaceous shock, it could be, you know, months before
you recover from a nitrogenous shock.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Any other questions? You
can step down.
MR. FORT: I call our last witness, Mr. Jim
Huff. Swear the witness.
(Witness sworn.)
WHEREUPON:
J A M E S H U F
F,
called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn,
deposeth and saith as follows:
E X A M I N A T I O N
by Mr. Fort
Q. Would you state your name for the record, please?
A. James Edward Huff.
Q. Mr. Huff, you have prepared
prefiled testimony in
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
25
this proceeding?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And I think we've marked that as exhibit --
Petitioner's Exhibit 4. Is that your testimony?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And you've also prepared a report entitled
Environmental Assessment & Effluent Limit Derivation
Report of The
Lemont Refinery Wastewater Discharge we've
marked as Exhibit No. 5. Is that your report?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And was that report prepared under your
supervision and direction?
A. Yes.
MR. FORT: Mr. Hearing Officer, I'd also ask
that the narrative part of Mr. Huff's testimony in
Exhibit 4 be admitted as if read. There are some tables
that are attached that I think would be very difficult to
put in the transcript, but if we could have the narrative
part put in as if read and then have Exhibits 4 and 5
admitted.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Are there any objections
to the admission of these exhibits?
MR. GUNNARSON: No.
THE HEARING OFFICER: They will be so
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
26
admitted.
MR. FORT: I have no further questions of this
witness.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Are there any questions
for this witness from the Agency?
Mr. O'Brien, do you have any questions for this
witness?
MR. O'BRIEN: Could you talk a little bit about
the amount of wastewater that is generated on a daily
basis? I've seen estimates on an average of 3.8 million
to 4.1 million gallons per day, I believe.
MR. HUFF: Depending on what period of time
that you're talking about, that number will vary. I
believe the number that -- 4.1 million gallons per day is
a reasonable number of what they're currently
discharging.
MR. O'BRIEN: On page six of your testimony,
you have ammonia
loadings that's going into the stream or
the canal; is that correct? It's a maximum, sir?
MR. HUFF: I don't think that's correct.
MR. O'BRIEN: I'm looking at the chart here,
and you've got ammonia
loadings and ammonia
concentrations.
MR. HUFF: Those are permit limits that are in
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
27
the current NPDES permit, and I also believe they were
contained in the previous adjusted standard.
MR. O'BRIEN: Correct. Those would be pounds
going in the stream?
MR. HUFF: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Those are the
effluent limits on the wastewater discharge.
MR. O'BRIEN: Okay. You identified basically
in your testimony on page three and five that the
refinery has discharged an average of 70 pounds per day
ammonia, and that during 1996 and '97 you had a net
loading of negative 13 pounds a day basically indicating
that you removed 13 pounds more of ammonia than you were
putting back in the canal.
Why is such a high headroom necessary, I mean, to go
from, basically, taking 13 pounds more out to going up to
749 pounds?
MR. FORT: Object. I don't believe that --
MR. HUFF: I think -- I'm not sure that we're
comparing apples with apples. So the 749 pound limit was
derived based on USEPA categorical standards for best
available treatment technology. That's what USEPA has
determined for a petroleum refinery of this size and
complexity what that refinery should be capable of
discharging. That's BAT. That's what the 749 pounds a
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
28
day means.
MR. O'BRIEN: That's where you're getting those
numbers from, right?
MR. HUFF: Right. And then I think you were
confusing a gross number, the 70 pounds a day, to a net
number of a minus 13 pounds per day. So you just need to
be careful if you're talking gross or net.
MR. O'BRIEN: Okay. But being that -- so
basically with like a -- the 9.4 milligram per liter per
day, like a daily average
max, that would only allow you
to put out 321 pounds, roughly, per day?
MR. HUFF: I have not done that calculation,
but that sounds correct.
MR. O'BRIEN: Okay. And when your system
fails, I mean it goes to that degree of -- when you have
problems meeting the consistent standard, normally you
appear to be pretty low and meeting the standard very
well, but when it fails, does it fail that big going
from, you know, an average of 13 pounds or negative 13
pounds all the way up to 749 pounds?
MR. HUFF: I think you're comparing it really
to apples and oranges again. There's two issues. One is
a pounds limitation which was derived in accordance with
the BAT limits. Generally, in Illinois, there are
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
29
predominately concentration limits and then there may be
some corresponding pounds limits to that.
If you look at Table 1 attached to Exhibit 4, you can
look at the daily maximum concentration numbers to see
what kind of levels that they're discharging on a
concentration basis and then you can go through the math,
if you'd like, to convert that to the number of pounds.
MR. O'BRIEN: But we were just curious on the
actual pounds per day.
MR. FORT: I think -- can I interject here? I
think there's -- the issue here is mixing the data versus
an enforceable limit, which is what the NPDES limit goes
to, and I think we have to be careful to make sure that
we're making the distinction between the two.
I'm not sure if you have any further information that
would help answer that, Claude.
MR. HARMON: Well, I just want to make sure we
were understanding the question.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Can you state your name
for the record if you're going to speak?
MR. HARMON: Claude Harmon.
So the way I understand the question is when we have
an upset, do we reach that limit?
MR. O'BRIEN: Right.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
30
MR. HARMON: And I think there's some
information in the
prefiled testimony that says yeah, we
have exceeded that limit on occasion.
MR. HUFF: Again, though, the limit is the
concentration limit, the pounds limit, and I don't
believe they've ever exceeded the BAT limits. If you
take 26 milligrams per liter and you assume there's an
average flow of 4.1 milligrams per liter, that's under --
MR. O'BRIEN: Milligrams --
MR. HUFF: -- a million gallons per day.
That's under a thousand pounds a day that they would be
discharging under an upset condition typically.
So you can compare that number to what the BAT limits
were.
MR. O'BRIEN: That's basically what I was, you
know, going for as far as --
MR. HUFF: So to my knowledge, I don't believe
they've ever exceeded the BAT limits.
MR. O'BRIEN: Okay. Were you able to -- we
talked a little bit earlier about monitoring the ammonia
levels in the
feedstock basically.
Do you have any -- well, skip that.
Do you have information regarding how many pounds per
day your highest limit in the last two years that you've
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
31
put into the stream is? You haven't converted it all?
Because it gives you -- you've given us milligrams per
liter, but your effluent, how much you're putting out,
isn't stated there.
MR. HUFF: Again, I have not calculated that.
Predominately, when the refinery came before the Board
five years ago approximately -- in fact, we had asked for
pounds limitations instead of concentrations because the
refinery had some limited capabilities to control the
pounds. They can cut back the flow rate for a while and
build water and equalization and they don't have the
ability to control concentration under upset conditions.
That concept was not supported by the Agency. We
ended up basically with the limits that are in the
adjusted standard today. So, frankly, we just have
focused -- I focused on the concentration basis as being
what is deemed appropriate in Illinois and more than the
BAT limits. That was really done by Mr. Stein.
MR. O'BRIEN: Okay. Thank you. Page five of
your testimony you compared the incremental cost unit of
achieving compliance with the ammonia multiplication with
the unit cost for the Calumet River Reclamation Plant.
Wouldn't the unit cost of the -- I'm going to strike
that.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
32
DR. FLEMAL: There are a number of things,
Mr. Huff, regarding the environmental impact that might
be useful to put on the record in the hearing here as
well as within your report.
What is the classification of the waterway to which
the discharge occurs?
MR. HUFF: Secondary contact water.
DR. FLEMAL: And -- but that water eventually
as it moves downstream enters waterways that are general
use waterways; is that correct?
MR. HUFF: That's correct, on the Des Plaines
River at the I-55 bridge.
DR. FLEMAL: And how many miles downstream is
that?
MR. HUFF: I don't know off the top of my
head. It's approximately ten though.
DR. FLEMAL: Okay. And in between there, is
there any change in the volume discharge related to --
MR. HUFF: Well, at the Lockport lock and damn
where the ship canal basically ends, which is
approximately five miles downstream and that merges with
the Des Plaines River, yes, there's a significant change
there.
DR. FLEMAL: Because there you're adding the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
33
canal water to the Des Plaines River water?
MR. HUFF: That's correct.
DR. FLEMAL: You make the observation, and for
purposes of the record here, I'll note that in your
prepared testimony it occurs on page eight, that the
water that's used at the refinery is withdrawn from the
ship canal. It is true that all of the water used in the
processing is from that one source; is that correct?
MR. HUFF: Other than drinking water. So
substantially all of it, yes.
DR. FLEMAL: So in some sense the water
experiences a cycling from the canal through the plant
operations and then back in the canal?
MR. HUFF: With some loss for evaporation,
that's correct.
DR. FLEMAL: And the water that's the intake
water itself has a significant ammonia contribution?
MR. HUFF: Yes, it does.
DR. FLEMAL: Can you characterize that in terms
of concentration or load -- weight load for the record
here?
MR. HUFF: I can do both. On Figure 1 on
Exhibit 4 it shows the annual average influent ammonia
concentrations with time, and there's been a dramatic
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
34
improvement in the ship canal over -- from 1985, '87 it
was 0.3 milligrams per liter. In 1996, it was down to
1.28 milligrams per liter.
On a pounds basis, I believe we compare on Figure 3
also attached to Exhibit 8 the average influent and
effluent ammonia levels on a pounds basis and the solid
lines are the influent. We pull in approximately
somewhere in the order of 50 pounds per day out of the
canal.
DR. FLEMAL: You didn't make an additional --
on page eight the statement that the net ammonia
contribution from the refinery, and I won't read in all
the numbers, but ending with the statement that at
present, at any rate, or since 1996 the refinery has
removed an average of 13 pounds more of ammonia than it
has discharged back to the canal. I guess I would ask
you simply to elaborate on how those numbers derive.
MR. HUFF: Well, the refinery measures the
intake ammonia concentration on, I believe, an almost
daily basis. They also meter how much water is
withdrawn. So if you know the concentration and how much
is withdrawn, you can compute the mass. That's how the
influent and the effluent is the exact same way. They
know how much they're discharging and they know the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
35
concentration and they compute the mass.
So what we did was look at the monthly average values
and compared those and then computed it on an annual
basis, and since 1996 through the first three-quarters
of '97, they had extracted from the canal 13 pounds per
day more than what they had discharged over that same
period of time.
DR. FLEMAL: So in some sense, the presence of
the refinery at that spot decreases the total loading
within the canal?
MR. HUFF: Yes.
DR. FLEMAL: Have you attempted to do an
analysis of what the effect of the refinery's discharges
are on the in-stream concentration as you go down the
secondary-use waterway at the Des Plaines and finally
into the primary?
MR. HUFF: We did in the previous report that
was done approximately five years ago. We modeled
both -- we modeled the effect of the incremental ammonia
loading on the dissolved oxygen all the way down the
Illinois River, and basically it was found negligible at
that point in time that we didn't go through that
exercise, sir.
DR. FLEMAL: Okay. You just used the term
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
36
dissolved oxygen. Did you mean ammonia or --
MR. HUFF: Dissolved oxygen. Go back to
ammonia. Why did we look at ammonia, and the answer is
that there are no ammonia water quality violations
downstream of the refinery looking at the last couple of
years of data, not only on the secondary contact waters,
but then under the recent R 94-1B ammonia water quality
changes there are no ammonia water quality violations
along the Illinois River.
If I could just kind of elaborate, the Illinois River
and the Chicago River system are unique in Illinois.
When the Board originally promulgated these, it's the
only waterway that they put effluent limits on for
ammonia, and the reasons that the Board did that was
because of the very low dissolved oxygen and elevated
ammonia nitrogen that occurred in those waterways.
Those two conditions no longer exist. We're getting
successful ammonia removal in the ship canal today which
we weren't getting 20 years ago due to the low dissolved
oxygen. So I think if the Board were to go back today
and say why do we have the three and six milligram per
liter ammonia monthly average and daily maximum limits on
this waterway, the reasons that they put that on there no
longer exist today. I think this is kind of an anomaly
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
37
on the record today, if you will.
DR. FLEMAL: In your mind, it is -- it would be
a fair statement to say then that the impact of the
ammonia discharges at the refinery on the ammonia in
downstream areas, be that measured as concentration or as
mass, is negligible?
MR. HUFF: Yes. It's not causing -- there's no
water quality violations, and just to expand a little
more, if we didn't have the three and six milligram per
liter effluent limits, then the appropriate question
would be what would be the appropriate effluents limits
that the Agency would write in an NPDES permit today, and
I believe the answer is it's exactly what we're asking
for here is what the Agency would write as a permit today
if that unique regulation didn't exist in the Board's
rules.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Huff, I just want to
bring your attention back to an earlier question that was
asked the first witness.
One of the requirements of the proposed site specific
relief is to monitor the nitrogen concentration entering
at the feedstocks. Do you recall that?
MR. HUFF: Yes.
THE HEARING OFFICER: And the first witness had
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
38
suggested you might be better able to talk about that
particular issue.
I guess the question would be does the chemical makeup
of feedstock or the crude oil in
feedstock being crude
oil have a significant affect on the effluent ammonia
concentration?
MR. HUFF: I think I would answer that by
referencing Exhibit No. 5, our full report, and comparing
Figure 2.4, which is the percent nitrogen in crude oil
which has really gone up. It's gone up threefold since
1974, 1975 up to the current period of time, and then
comparing that to Figure 3.1, which was the annual
average effluent ammonia limitations, which has shown
that we've gone from 22 milligrams per liter back in
1985, '86 and the effluent in that period down to under
three milligrams per liter on an annual average basis for
the last three years.
So I don't think there's a very strong correlation.
There certainly isn't a strong correlation between
effluent ammonia levels and the nitrogen level in the
crude.
Perhaps, a follow-up question to that would be well,
is there a correlation between the amount of nitrogen in
the crude and influent ammonia levels, and the answer to
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
39
that is maybe there is. It's more complex than that
because you've got two sour water strippers that are
major ammonia removal units. You also have some organic
nitrogen that actually is converted to ammonia nitrogen
in the wastewater treatment facility. So that's a really
complex question to answer, I think, statistically.
So I guess the short answer is I don't see any real
strong correlation between those, and is it worthwhile to
continue to report that type of information, not to my
mind. Perhaps, that's a question for the Agency, are
they looking at that data and doing anything with it, but
I don't see where that's providing anything useful.
THE HEARING OFFICER: And you don't think the
makeup of the crude oil has a significant impact on the
effluent concentration?
MR. HUFF: Oh, no, and, in fact, I think if you
compare Figure 2.4 to 3.1, you can conclude that same
way.
THE HEARING OFFICER: I have no further
questions. Are there any questions for Mr. Huff?
MR. GUNNARSON: Nothing from the Agency.
F U R T H E R E X A M I N A T I O N
by Mr. Fort
Q. I'm going to ask him -- Mr. Huff one further
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
40
question along the lines of Board Member
Flemal about the
level of ammonia nitrogen in the -- on average, an annual
average, in the discharge and the level of dissolved
oxygen and that same discharge in terms of the relative
impact on the stream looking at the entire discharge
component of ammonia nitrogen and dissolved oxygen.
Can you comment on that relationship?
A. I think so. I think I understand your question.
If you look at Table 1 in Exhibit 4 on the annual average
ammonia level 1996, '97, they discharged approximately
one milligram per liter of ammonia. To fully nitrify,
that will consume about four and a half parts per million
of dissolved oxygen.
The refinery's wastewater effluent contains probably
on average about eight milligrams per liter of oxygen.
So I think the answer to your question is there's more
than enough oxygen present in the discharge to compensate
for any oxygen demand for the ammonia.
MR. FORT: Thank you.
THE HEARING OFFICER: Any further questions?
You can step down.
MR. FORT: We have nothing further.
THE HEARING OFFICER: I want to go off the
record for just a second, if I may. Can we go off?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
41
(Discussion had
off the record.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: We can go back on.
Are there any further witnesses today? Okay. Seeing
none, the only issue so far as we can tell is the matter
of the Sunset provision that the Agency had noticed in
their prefiled testimony and talked about in its opening
statement today.
I wanted to ask you what is your position on the
Sunset provision?
MR. FORT: Well, we just received the Agency's
position -- statement position. We have it under
consideration. We would like to hear if there's anybody
else that has ideas before we go any further.
I did talk to Mr.
Gunnarson yesterday about the
possibility of, you know, letting the record develop and
then maybe sitting down to see if we could come to a
consensus on this. So I guess right now it's too early
for us to take a formal position on it.
DR. FLEMAL: The Board, of course, is quite
interested in having your perspectives entered into the
record whenever you feel that it's developed and
important that you want to share with us.
MR. FORT: And we will be glad to do that.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
42
THE HEARING OFFICER: And to that point, I want
to talk about -- and we should go off the record again.
(Discussion had
off the record.)
THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. After a discussion
off the record, we have decided that April 6th, 1998,
will be the deadline for comments after this hearing. So
all comments must be submitted by April 6th, 1998.
Which brings us pretty much to the end of the
hearing. I note that there are -- aside from the one
member of the public that we saw walk in, no other
members of the public have attended this hearing.
Are there any other comments at this point that anyone
would like to make on the record? Seeing none, I'm going
to close this hearing. Thank you very much for coming
here, and we appreciate your time. This hearing is
closed.
(Which were all the proceedings
had in the above-entitled
matter.)
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
43
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS.
COUNTY OF C O
O K )
I, GEANNA M. PIGNONE-IAQUINTA, do
hereby state that I am a court reporter doing business in
the City of Chicago, County of Cook, and State of
Illinois; that I reported by means of machine shorthand
the proceedings held in the foregoing cause, and that the
foregoing is a true and correct transcript of
my shorthand notes so taken as aforesaid.
__________________________
Geanna M. Pignone-Iaquinta
Notary Public, Cook County, IL
Illinois License No. 084-004096
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
before me
this_____day
of__________, A.D., 1998.
___________________________
Notary Public
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292