BEFORE
THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS
~
LL~4
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
Pollution Control
Board
)
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION and
)
PDV MD WEST REFINING, L.L.C.,
)
)
PCB__~)~:~
0
Petitioners,
)
(Variance
-
Water)
)
v.
)
)
ILLINOIS ENVIIWNMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Dorothy Gunn
Clerk ofthe Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
-
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL
60601
Please take notice that on November 8,
2004, we filed with the Office ofthe Clerk ofthe
Illinois Pollution Control Board an original and ten copies of the attached Petition for Variance, a
copy ofwhich is serviced upon you.
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION and
PDV MID
ST REFINING, L.L.C.
By:
O~~t~Y(
Jeffrey C. Fort
Letissa Carver Reid
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
8000 Sears Tower
233
S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL
60606-6404
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-.
r~
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
tIOV
08
2~1’i
OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
-
STATE O~-lU’
potluttOn
Conirol boar
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION and
)
PDV MIDWEST REFINING, L.L.C.,
)
)
PCB
O~S
-~3
Petitioners,
)
(Variance
-
Water)
)
V.
)
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
PETITIONFOR VARIANCE
PDV Midwest Refining, L.L.C: (“PDVMR”) and CITGO Petroleum Corporation petition
the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”) for a variance authorizing discharges ofTotal
Dissolved Solids (“TDS”) and
sulfates pursuant to the terms and conditions outlined herein.
In
the alternative, this Petition seeks a declaration that the discharges described herein will not
cause or contribute to a violation ofthe Board’s water quality standards for TDS.
PDVMR is the
owner ofthe Refinery described herein, and CITGO Petroleum Corporation is the operator ofthe
Refinery.
(Hereafter, these Petitioners
will be jointly referred to
as CITGO).
CITGO has
entered into a Consent Decree with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S.
EPA”) and the States of Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey and Georgia to resolve certain alleged air
quality violations.
The resolution for these claimed violations requires reduction ofair emissions
at the Refinery.
This process will contribute to the wastewater treatment system additional levels
ofdissolved
solids and sulfates.
To comply with the Consent Decree, CITGO must construct
certain equipment and
obtain air and water construction and operating permits from the Agency.
The Agency has advised CITGO that it cannot issue such a wastewaterconstruction permit due
to occasional water quality violations for TDS.
For the reasons stated below, compliance would
pose an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship on CITGO, and CITGO therefore requests a 5-year
variance with respect to Chapter 35 ofthe Illinois Administrative Code,
35
JAC
§ §
302.208(g)
and 302.407 regarding TDS.
Inthe alternative, CITGO requests a determination by the Board
that CITGO would be in unquestioned compliance with the TDS
standards.
This Petition for
Variance (“Petition” or “Variance”) is
brought pursuant to Section
35 ofthe Act,
415 ILCS
5/35,
and Part 104 of Chapter 35 ofthe Illinois Administrative Code,
35 IAC
§
104.100 et ~q.
In
support ofthis Petition, CITGO states as follows:
I.
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
1.
The Refinery was constructed during the period 1967 through 1970.
It became
operational in late fall of 1969.
Currently, the average daily production is
168,626 barrels per
day.
The Refinery employs approximately 530 people.
2.
Approximately twenty-five different products are produced at the Refinery,
including gasolines, turbine fuels, diesel fuels, furnace oils, petroleum coke and various
specialty
naphthas which can be manufactured into many intermediate products, including antifreeze,
dacron, detergent, industrial alcohols, plastics
and synthetic rubber.
Ninetypercent of the
Refinery’s output goes into making gasolines, diesel fuels, home heating oils and turbine fuels
for use in Illinois and throughout the Midwest.
3.
The Refinery draws from and discharges to the Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal
(“Canal”).
The Refinery takes approximately 4.0 million gallons ofwater daily from the Canal,
• and
discharges approximately 3.8 million gallons
to the Canal, the difference being cooling
2
tower evaporation and steam losses.
The wastewater effluent contains dissolved solids derived
from compounds present in crude oil that are removed from the crude by various Refinery
operations, as well as concentrating the TDS present in the intake water from the Canal from the
evaporation cooling.
4.
The Board adopted Title 35
§
302.208(g)
to control TDS in the Illinois River
system and
§
302.407
to
control TDS in the Canal.
The need for this Variance arises due to the
potential impact both in the Canal and downstream at the
1-55
Bridge over the Illinois River and
whetherthe increased level ofTDS would “cause or contribute to a violation ofa water quality
standard” even though those exceedances are associated with snow melt conditions independent
ofTDS discharges from the Refinery.
5.
The Refineryoperates under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(“NPDES”) permit (No. IL 0001589), issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“IEPA”).
The NPDES permit became effective September
1,
1994.
CITGO filed a timely
NPDBS renewal application in 1997.
The NPDES permit includes outfall 001
atthe Refinery at
river mile
296.5
on the Canal (Latitude
41°38’58”,
Longitude 88°03’31”). The current NPDES
permit does not have effluent limits on TDS.
6.
The Refinery includes a physical/chemical and biological wastewater treatment
plant.
The treatment plant performs primary, secondary and tertiary treatment on the generated
wastewater before it is discharged into the Canal.
The original wastewater treatment plant,
which began operation in
1969, included two oil/water separators, a flow equalization tank, a
primary clarifier, an activated sludge system and
a polishing pond.
Several wastewater treatment
plant modifications have been made since the original installation.
Major changes to
the system
3
induced gas flotation, new oil/water separators, process water storage tanks, a new aeration
basin, a high efficiency aeration system, and a second final clarifier.
7.
The primary treatment portion ofthe current plant consists offour sour water
strippers for ammonia and sulfide removal,
oil/water separators for free oil removal, and
equalization tanks.
8.
Effluent from the equalization tanks flows to the secondary treatment plant which
consists ofinduced gas flotation (“IGF”) and activated sludge treatment system.
The activated
sludge system includes three aeration basins operated in parallel with a total aerationbasin
volume of 1.92 million gallons.
Aeration is provided by a fine-bubble diffused aeration system.
Activated sludge is settled in two
100-ft. diameter secondary clarifiers.
Within the aeration
basin,
phosphorous is added as a nutrient for biological organisms.
During the winter, steam is
injected to the equalizationtank to maintain operating temperatures at a minimum of70°Fin the
aeration basin effluent.
9.
The tertiary system consists of a 16-million gallon basin.
The purpose ofthe
basin is to remove any carryover solids from the secondary clarifier.
The basin also
serves as a
water supply for fire protection.
10,
Since 1987, the Refineryhas been subject to a site-specific rule concerning
ammonia discharges, has made improvements to the wastewater treatment system, and has
continued its efforts to reduce the concentration ofammonia nitrogen in its wastewater.
The
Refinery met these requirements through various
upgrades to
the wastewater treatment system.
4
II.
EXISTING WATER QUALITY
11.
The Refinery discharges into the Canal, upstream ofthe Lockport Lock & Dam.
Below the dam, the Canal merges with the Des Plaines River, passes through Joliet and
11
miles
downstream of Joliet passes beneath the
1-55
Bridge.
Until the
1-55
Bridge, the receiving waters
are designated as Secondary Contract waters; below the
1-55
Bridge, the Des Plaines River is
designated as General Use water, the General Use waters begin 18.5 miles below CITGO’s
outfall.
Illinois has adopted different water quality standards for Secondary Contact and General
Use streams.
The relevant standards are as follows:
General Use
Secondary Contact
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), mg/L
1,000
1,500
12.
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits are based on low flow stream conditions (7-
day,
10-year).
Estimated values for stream low flows are listed below:
Low Flow, MGD
Canal at CITGO Refinery
1,134
Des Plaines River at
1-55
Bridge
1,260
13.
The peak TDS result
(1,902 mg/L) at the
1-55
Bridge occurred on March 16,
2000, and was likely due to
road deicing activities.
The peak recorded TDS on the Canal
(1,595mg/L)
occurred January 4, 2001, and also was likely due to road deicing activities.
14.
Under the Consent Decree, CITGO will install a wet gas scrubber in the Fluid
Catalytic Converter (“FCC”) unit at the Refinery to remove sulfur dioxide air emissions.
The
sulfur dioxide is ultimately converted to sodium sulfate salts which are contained in a purge
stream.
This purge stream is then discharged into the Refinery wastewater treatment system.
5
The design specifications forthe wet gas scrubber blowdown will limit the exit temperature to
90°F,before discharge to the basin.
Other design features havebeen made to address nitrates
and ammonianitrogen levels and avoid the need forrelief from any other regulation.
15.
The preliminary estimates are that the scrubbing
system would add 304,000
lbs/day ofTDS.
1
III.
PROJECTED IMPACT OF SCRUBBER
16.
At low flow conditions, CITGO will increase the sulfate and TDS levels in the
waterways
after mixing, as follows:
Incremental Increase
Canal
Des Plaines River
@1-55 Bridge
Sulfate, mg/L
20
18
TDS,mg/L
32
29
17.
The projected sulfates would achieve the applicable water quality standards,
after
complete mixing,
while the TDS probably would continue to exceed the water quality standard
during times ofsnow melt run-off.
IV.
REGULATORY
CONSTRAINTS
18.
Effluent Limits
-
There are no specific Illinois effluent limits on sulfates or TDS.
Therefore, to the extent there are water quality impacts, effluent limits would be based on Water
Quality Based Effluent Limits (“WQBELs”), factoring in antidegradation, Total Maximum Daily
Limits (“TMDLs”), and mixing zones.
Assumes all sodium salts.
6
19.
Mixing Zone
-
Under illinois regulations, the maximum allowable mixing zone is
25 percent ofthe stream flow.
Water quality standards must be achieved at the edge ofthe
mixing zone.
Using the projected discharge loadings and only 25 percent of the Canal’s low
flow yields the following incremental change in water quality results:
Projected Increase in WQ
at Edge ofMixing Zone
Sulfate, mg/L
81
TDS,mg/L
•
128
20.
Categorical Limits
-
U.S. EPA has promulgated categorical limits on various
industries, including the petroleum refining industry.
These regulations found, in 40
CFR 419,
do not
include specific effluent limits
on sulfates or TDS.
The Board has previously found that
the wastewatertreatment system goes beyond Best Available Technology (“BAT”)
requirements.
21.
Impaired Waterways
-
Section 303(d) ofthe Clean Water Act requires states to
identify impaired waterways and the causes ofimpairment and then develop what is
essentiallya
waste load allocation for addressing the impairment.
Illinois prepared its
list ofimpaired
waterways in 1998:
738 segments were identified.
Illinois also developed a priority list for
addressing these 738 segments.
According to IEPA’s
Illinois Water
Quality Report 2002,
the entire stretch ofthe Canal
and the downstream Des Plaines River both are listed as impaired waterways, for a variety of
reasons.
However, none of the reasons listed are for sulfates or total dissolved solids.
7
22.
That CITGO should not be responsible for TDS excursions caused by highway
deicing is consistent with the Agency’s recent decision on the Village ofWauconda’s NPDES
permit.
Dissolved oxygen levels were found downstreamof Wauconda’s outfall below the water
quality standard.
The Agency noted in its Response to Comments, Questions and Concerns
regarding the Village ofWauconda’s NPDES permit:
“This information is limited; the extent to
which it is representative ofnormal stream conditions and its relationship to
Wauconda
discharge is unknown.”
(emphasis added) (p. 7).
The Agency goes on to state in its Response
Summaryregarding the same:
“The Agency has determined that lowering the NPDES permit
limits is not necessary for this discharge since it is believed that
this effluent will not cause or contribute to
a violation ofwater
quality standards” (p.
13).
The Agency’s analysis in the Wauconda NPDES permit review is consistent with CITGO’s
•situation.
The elevated TDS levels do not occur under “normal stream conditions” and the TDS
violations
occur with or without CITGO’s
contribution.
Therefore, CITGO is not causing or
contributing to
these violations.
23.
Based on the foregoing analysis, CITGO submits that the increased discharge of
these materials associated with the Consent Decree required controls for air emissions will not
cause a violation of any water quality standard.
Given that the snow melt conditions arebeyond
the control ofCITGO and that the Agency has not listed the Canal as impaired due to the TDS
exceedance associated with snow melt conditions, CITGO requests the Board find that its TDS
discharge would be in compliance, thus allowing the issuance of the permit by the Agency.
8
24.
Based on the foregoing, CITGO submits that the relief here requested is not
inconsistent with the effluent standards and areawide planning criteriaunder the Clean Water
Act.
V.
ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP
25.
This proceeding is occasioned by the Consent Decree, to which the Agency is a
party, lodged by U.S. EPA to substantially reduce emissions ofsulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides
and Particulate Matter.
CITGO agreed to these reductions and will be investing over $120
million at the Refinery, most ofwhich costs are for the very wet gas scrubber which generates
the TDS and sulfates identified above.
These investments are projected to reduce SO2 emissions
by 15,300 tons/year, NOx emissions by 1,100 tons/ year,
and PM emissions by 80 tons/year.
26.
The relative contribution from CITGO is readily within the assimilative capacity
ofthe waterway, and there
is no water quality violation for TDS in the Canal and Illinois River,
except in association with snow melt conditions.
27.
The Agency has been investigating changes in water quality standards for sulfate
and TDS.
Investigations have occurred and are on-going.
These investigations indicate that the
existing TDS standard is unnecessary
~j4
that a higher numerical standard for sulfate would still
be protective ofwater quality uses.
The Agency has advised CITGO that it intends to pursue a
change in the
TDS and sulfate water quality standards statewide in the near future.
Under the
Agency’s draft proposal, TDS would be removed as a water quality parameter, and sulfate water
quality standards would be increased to
1,800 mg/L.
At these proposed standards, even during
snow melt conditions, there would not be a water quality exceedance.
9
28.
Therefore, there may not be a need for further controls on CITGO’s wastewater
discharges with respect to TDS.
Indeed, the only potential violation of the existing standard for
TDS
is in association with snow melt conditions, a cause for which CITGO clearly is not
responsible.
Indeed, the Agency has not listed the Canal or the applicable Illinois River segment
as impaired for TDS,
29.
CITGO has investigated methods ofavoiding releasing the wastewater from the
FCC to the existing wastewater treatment system, including deep well disposal and removal
technologies.
30.
The Agency has rejected the deep well disposal optionbecause in its view this
would constitute a Class I injection well.
Class I injection wells are permittable only where there
exists a cap rock to prevent the injected fluids from migratingupwards.
In northeastern Illinois,
no
cap rock exists over the depth where disposal wells are drilled.
This alternative is not viable.
31.
Technologies forremoving sodium sulfate from a dilute aqueous
stream are
limited.
Electrodialysis has neverbeen applied in the chemical or refinery industries on the scale
required at the Refinery.
Biological sulfate reduction is theoretically possible, but this will not
reduce the overall TDS concentration merely by replacingthe sulfate ions with carbonate ions.
The concentration ofsodium sulfate
is too high forreverse osmosis
concentration, as scaling
problems would develop.
32.
The sole technology potentially available is evaporation, an energy intensive
approach, which will result in increased carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere.
The
evaporation approach would require a multi-effect evaporator to minimize energy consumption.
A falling film evaporator with mechanical vapor recompression (“MVR”) is the most energy
10
efficient approach.
Subsequent crystallization would produce a dry sodium sulfate by-product.
Whether this by-product would be ofsufficient purity~tohave any market value has not been
determined.
Attachment A depicts a conceptual process flow diagram ofa falling film
evaporator with MVR.
A feed pump lifts the steam to the top ofthe evaporator, where the water
fallsthrough steam-heated tubes.
Once sufficient water is driven off, the stream is cooled,
resulting in sodium sulfate crystals in the crystallizer.
The water vapor is compressed and routed
to the shell side ofthe falling-film tubes to become steam.
The sodium sulfate crystals are
directed to a centrifuge to concentrate the solids,
followedby a dryer producing a dry sodium
sulfate by-product.
The capital cost in 2004 dollars for applying this technology to this wastewater stream is
on the order of$7,000,000.
Operating costs, including depreciation, are estimated at $1,000,000
per year, with 40 percent ofthis amount representing energy costs.
The above cost estimate
assumes the Refinery has sufficient steam capacity, and that
a new boiler is not required.
Moreover, CITGO is not aware ofa situation where such a massive evaporation system has been
constructed or operated, and further notes the increased energy demand and emission impact that
such an evaporation system would entail.
Further investigation would be warranted before such
an approach were pursued.
33.
The schedule for final compliance with applicable Board standards is proposed as
follows:
August
5,
2004
CITGO
submits amended NPDES permit application
December 31, 2004
CITGO
submits wastewater construction permit
January, 2005
Agency
issues public notice on draft NPDES permit
March
1, 2005
Public comment period closes
March 15, 2005
Agency
issues
NPDES permit final if no public
comments received
11
March 31, 2005
Construction permit issued
if no public comments
received
June
15,
2005
Agency
issues amended NPDES permit
final if
public meeting Or public hearing held
June 30, 2005
Agency issues
construction permit forwastewater
facilities, if public meeting or hearings held
July, 2006
FCC scrubber construction completed and discharge occurs
July, 2007
Ifrevised TDS water quality standard has not occurred,
commence design for alternative compliance approach, as
needed and provide Agency with quarterly progress reports
February, 2009
Achieve final compliance with 35 JAC
§~
302.208(g) and
302.407
34.
Requiring CITGO to install evaporation wastewater treatment for the scrubber
discharges into the wastewater system would impose an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship.
It
is not clear that CITGO is the cause of any water quality standard exceedance.
Further,
CITGO
is investing substantial monies in the Refineryto substantially reduce air emissions and
substantially reducing the overall environmental releases from the Refinery, and the wastewater
discharge involved is relatively modest.
Hence, requiring control ofthe increased wastewater
discharge would impose an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship on CITGO.
VI.
REQUEST FOR
HEARING
35.
CITGO
requests a hearing on this Petition.
At the hearing, CITGO will present
evidence in support ofthis Petition, as described herein.
An affidavit in support ofthis Petition
is Attachment B hereto.
•
VII. CONCLUSION
36.
The hardship to
CITGO
of compliance with the TDS water quality standard is
substantial and there is no benefit to the public or the environment by compelling such
compliance.
Indeed, there does not appear to be any practical compliance
alternative atthis
time.
12
Even if there is an alternative, such would result in substantial adverse affects on the
environment in the form ofincreased emissions to
evaporate the wastewater.
37.
In conclusion, CITGO would request that the Board either determine that the
proposed discharge associated with the Consent Decree as described herein does not cause or
contribute to the potential TDS water quality violations, or to grant CITGO this Variance for a
period of
5
years from the date ofgranting this Variance on the conditions proposed herein.
WHEREFORE, CITGO requests that this Petition for Variance be granted.
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION and
PDV MD)~STREFINING, L.L.C.
By:
&~
•
One/~~s~Attorneys
Jeffrey C. Fort
Letissa Carver Reid
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
8000 Sears Tower
233
South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
1
1782250v2
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned,
an attorney,
certifies that I have served upon the individuals named on
the attached Notice ofFiling true and correct copies ofthe
Petition for Variance
by First Class
Mail, postage prepaid, on November 8, 2004.
Exhibit
A
-~-•-•••-••••••
__
H
MECHANICAL
VAPOR
RECOMPRESSION
WATER
VAPOR
IREFINERY
VASTEVA
TREATMENT
FACILITIES
I
CONCEPT FOR SODIUM SULFATE RECOVERY
CONCEPTUAL PROCESS
FLOW
DIAGRAM
FOR EVAPORATION ALTERNATIVE
PURGE
CADE9LE~
crrGa.caPEP
Exhibit
B
COUNTY OF COOK
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
)SS.
)
INTHE MATTER OF:
)
)
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION and
)
PDV MIDWEST REFINiNG, L.L.C.
)
)
PCB_________
Petitioners,
)
(Variance
—
Water)
v.
)
)
ILLINOS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
)
Affidavit
of James E. Huff
I, James B. Huff, P.E., being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and states as follows:
1.
I am the Vice President ofHuff& Huff, Inc., an environmental engineering
consulting firm with offices in LaGrange, Illinois.
I have over 33
years ofexperience in the
environmental field with training and experience in environmental engineering and
environmental assessment.
2.
I have provided consulting services to the Lemont, Illinois Refinerywhich is the
subject of a Petition for Variance filed with the Illinois Pollution Control Board on November 8,
2004.
I was an investigator on behalf ofthe Lemont Refinerywith respect to the facts included
in the Petition for Variance
and assisted in the preparation of the Petition.
3.
Ihave read the Petition for Variance dated November
8, 2004, and based upon my
personal knowledge and belief, the
facts stated therein are true and correct.
Subscribed and
before this
8th
N
vember, 2004
No
ary Public
to me
OFFICIAL $~A~
MAUREEN T.WUNDERLICH
NOTARY
PUBLIC,
STATE OF
ILUNOIS
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 2.7~2OO8
Back to top
