R98014A.PDF

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

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

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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

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

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