2

In this opinion, the Board first delineates the procedural history of this rulemaking. As

background for this rulemaking, the Board then reviews the operations and history at the Joliet

Refinery, as well as the consent decree requiring Exxon Mobil to reduce air emissions. Next, the

Board discusses the water quality in the relevant river segment and the expected impact of this

rule on that stretch of water and on other dischargers. The Board then evaluates whether there

are any technically feasible and economically reasonable alternatives to the proposed rule.

Finally, the Board considers input from the Agency, the Illinois Department of Natural

Resources’ (DNR), and USEPA.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 7, 2006, ExxonMobil filed a petition for a site-specific rule under Section 28

of the Act (415 ILCS 28 (2004)). On the same day, the Agency and ExxonMobil filed a joint

motion asking the Board to expedite consideration of this petition and to waive the 200

signatures requirement.

The Board adopted the proposed rule for purposes of first notice under the APA in its

March 2, 2006 order, which began a 45-day period during which any person could file a public

comment with the Board. The Board granted the motion for expedited consideration without

commenting on the merits of the proposal. The first-notice rule was published in the

Illinois

Register

on March 17, 2006, and notice of publication was received from the Office of the

Secretary of State on March 16, 2006. The Board received public comments from the Agency on

July 5, 2006, and from ExxonMobil on July 11, 2006 and March 15, 2006.

On May 9, 2006, the Board scheduled a hearing for June 14, 2006, a prehearing

Telephonic Status Conference for June 7, 2006, and ordered participants to prefile testimony and

exhibits by May 31, 2006. The Board received prefiled testimony from the Agency and

ExxonMobil on May 31, 2006 and June 2, 2006, respectively. On May 31, 2006, the Board

received ExxonMobil’s response to the Board’s questions. James Huff, a registered professional

engineer, and Stacey K. Ford, an employee of ExxonMobil and New Source Review Consent

Decree Coordinator, both prefiled testimony on behalf of ExxonMobil.

See

Pet. Pre-File Test.

Mark Twait, an environmental engineer with the Agency, prefiled testimony on behalf of that

Agency.

See

Resp. Pre-File Test. On June 14, 2006, Stacey Ford and James Huff testified on

behalf of ExxonMobil, and Scott Twait and Robert Mosher testified on behalf of the Agency.

See

Tr. at 4. All of the witnesses testified in favor of the proposed rule.

Id.

The transcripts of the June 14, 2006 hearings were received by the Board on June 21,

2006, and promptly placed in the Clerk’s Office On Line (COOL) on the Board’s Web site at

www.ipcb.state.il.us. Many other documents from this rulemaking are available through COOL,

including Board opinions and orders, hearing officer orders, and public comments.

As required by Section 27(b) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/27(b) (2004)), the Board requested

an economic impact study from the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity

(DCEO) on March 2, 2006. To date, the Board has not received a response to that request.

---

3

BACKGROUND

In this part of the opinion, the Board first provides background on the Joliet Refinery and

information regarding the consent decree ExxonMobil signed to reduce air pollution, compliance

with which will increase TDS in the Joliet Refinery’s wastewater effluent. The Board then

reviews wastewater treatment at the Joliet Refinery.

Joliet Refinery

The ExxonMobil Joliet Refinery is located approximately 50 miles southwest of Chicago

in Channahon Township, Will County, on 1,300 acres of land adjacent to I-55 at the Arsenal

Road exit.

See

Pet. at 4. The Des Plaines River runs along the north end of the refinery’s

campus.

Id.

The Joliet Army Arsenal, which is being redeveloped as an industrial complex, is to

the east of the facility and the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie is to the south of the refinery.

Id.

at 4.

Operations began at the Joliet Refinery in 1972.

See

Pet

.

at 5. ExxonMobil currently

employs 600 full-time employees and 150 contractor employees at the Joliet site.

Id.

at 4. The

refinery is certified as a STAR worksite, which is a voluntary safety program of the United

States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Id.

at 5. The refinery operates

24-hours a day to produce approximately nine million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel per day.

Id.

at 5. The facility has a processing capacity of 240,000 barrels or 10.1 million gallons per day.

Id.

In addition to gasoline, the facility produces liquefied petroleum gas, propylene, asphalt,

sulfur, and petroleum coke.

Id.

at 5. The refinery draws approximately 10.2 million gallons of

water per day from the Des Plaines River and two million gallons of water daily from wells and

in turn the facility discharges 12.3 million gallons of wastewater per day into the Des Plaines

River.

Id.

The refinery draws water from and discharges to the Des Plaines River at

approximately 1,000 feet east of the I-55 Bridge.

Id.

Consent Decree

ExxonMobil will be retrofitting the Joliet Refinery to reduce air emissions in an effort to

comply with a consent decree it entered into with the USEPA and the States of Illinois,

Louisiana and Montana. Pet. at 1. The consent decree was a settlement for ExxonMobil’s

alleged violations of the New Source Review Program.

See

PC 2 at 1. The United States

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered the consent decree on December 13,

2005.

See

Pet. at 6. A copy of the consent decree was attached to ExxonMobil’s petition.

See

Pet. Exh. 1.

The consent decree requires ExxonMobil to install wet-gas scrubbers (WGS) and a

catalytic sulfur dioxide (SO

2

) additive technology (DESOX).

See

Pet. at 6. These technologies

are expected to significantly reduce emissions of several air pollutants from the refinery,

including a 95% reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions and a 50% reduction in the emission of

nitrous oxides.

Id.

at 6. The WGS will contribute additional sulfate and TDS to the wastewater

effluent from the refinery.

Id.

at 6.

---

4

As an attachment to its petition, ExxonMobil submitted a document entitled,

Process

Description Along with Simplified Process Flow Diagrams

, describing the DESOX and WGS

processes.

See

Pet. Exh. 3. The DESOX process is expected to capture SO

2

before processing

through the WGS, and therefore the DESOX will limit the total increase of TDS into the

wastewater discharge.

Id.

at 1. The WGS is expected to cause increased TDS wastewater

discharges from the refinery. In turn, this will impact the concentration of TDS in the receiving

waters.

See

Pet. Exh. 6 at 1.

Waste Water Treatment at the Joliet Refinery

ExxonMobil operates its wastewater treatment plant under a National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the Agency.

See

Pet. at 7. ExxonMobil attached

a copy of the modified NPDES permit to its petition.

See

Pet. Exh. 7. The permit does not

contain effluent limits on TDS.

Id.

,Pet. at 7. The Joliet Refinery’s wastewater treatment plant

(WWTP) includes physical/chemical and biological wastewater treatment processes, and

performs primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment of the wastewater generated by the refinery.

See

Pet. at 7. The WWTP began operations in 1972 and included:

two pre-separator fumes for gross oil removal, two API separators for oil and total

suspended solids removal, two activated sludge units that can be operated in both

parallel and series, followed by the treated guard basin and aeration before

discharge.

Id.

The refinery has made a number of improvements to its wastewater treatment system

over the years, including: the addition of a “large equalization basin/biological aerated lagoon,

larger blowers on the activated sludge units, new internals in the secondary clarifier” and process

changes in the refinery to reduce pollutant loadings on the treatment system.

Id.

at 7. The

refinery also installed “facilities to reduce oil carryover from process units,” implemented a “‘No

Oil to Sewer’ program plant-wide,” and installed “access points in the sewer system to allow

increased cleanouts.”

Id.

ExxonMobil attached a diagram of the refinery’s current wastewater

treatment system to its petition.

See

Pet. Exh. 5.

ExxonMobil plans to expend approximately $40,000,000 to meet total suspended solids

limitations for its wastewater discharge. Pet. at 8. ExxonMobil plans to upgrade the current

wastewater treatment plant in the following ways: upgrade the Sour Water Stripper for pH

optimization, which Exxon expects will reduce ammonia by 50%, install “alternate piping to

reroute [the fluid catalytic cracking unit (FCC)] feed tank water draws from the wastewater

treatment plant to the light slop system,” increase flow monitoring in the wastewater treatment

plant and install “new internals in the dissolved air floatation unit.”

Id

. at 8.

ExxonMobil is also evaluating three options for treatment of the purge stream from the

WGS.

See

Exh. 3 at 5, Exh. 6 at 4. None of the options will alter the amount of TDS discharged

to the receiving stream.

Id.

---

5

ISSUES

In this section, the Board evaluates justifications and issues surrounding the proposed

rule as discussed by ExxonMobil in its petition, comments and testimony, and by the Agency in

its testimony and comments. The issues addressed include: the water quality of the relevant

segment of the Des Plaines River, the impact of the rule on a variance the Board previously

granted to the CITGO Lemont Refinery, and on other dischargers to the water body, the lack of

available alternatives to the proposal, and input from the DNR and USEPA.

Water Quality

ExxonMobil claims that the requested site-specific rule will not lead to substantially and

significantly more adverse environment or health effects than the currently applicable rule.

See

Pet. at 8 and PC 2 at 4.

The refinery discharges into the Des Plaines River.

See

Pet at 8. The segment of the Des

Plaines River from the refinery discharge point up to the I-55 bridge is designated a secondary

contact water with a limit of 1500 mg/L for TDS. Pet. at 8, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.407

.

. The

segment of the Des Plaines River below the I-55 bridge, is designated as general use water with a

1000 mg/L limit for TDS. Pet. at 8, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208. The proposed site-specific rule

would set a concentration limit of 1,686 mg/L for TDS in the portion of the Des Plaines River

running from the ExxonMobil refinery wastewater discharge point located at I-55 and Arsenal

Road to the confluence of the Des Plaines River with the Kankakee River.

Id.

at 3.

The refinery discharges effluent into a stretch of the Des Plaines River where monitoring

has indicated exceedences above the applicable TDS water quality standards. Pet. at 3.

Specifically, the petition states that on January 25, 2001, the following maximum TDS levels

were observed: 1,194 mg/L at the I-55 bridge (beginning of General Use Water); and 1,595 mg/L

upstream of the refinery discharge point where secondary contact standards apply. Pet. at 9.

ExxonMobil claims that no other exceedences have been documented at the I-55 bridge or

downstream of the refinery discharge point since 2001.

Id.

The implications of the observed exceedences are discussed in a report by James E. Huff,

P.E. entitled,

Predicted Water Quality Impacts on the Des Plaines River from the Proposed Wet

Gas Scrubber from the ExxonMobil Joliet Refinery

.

See

Pet. Exh. 6. Mr. Huff’s report finds that

previous exceedences of the General Use TDS standard in 2001 were attributable to highway

deicing practices.

Id.

at 6. The report further notes that the relevant section of the Des Plaines

River is listed as impaired in the Illinois Water Quality Report 2002, but that such impairment is

not attributable to sulfates or TDS.

Id.

None of the reasons this segment of the Des Plaines

River is listed as impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act are related to TDS or

sulfate.

See

Pet. at 12

.

Mr. Huff’s report reviews TDS exceedences in 2001, and found that during that year, if

the Joliet Refinery had been using the WGS, the number of exceedences would have increased

from three to four.

Id.

at 5. Mr. Huff asserts that the increased number of exceedences would

---

6

have been caused by contributions from the WGS both at the Joliet Refinery and that from the

CITGO Lemont Refinery further upstream.

Id.

The Section 302.208 General Use Water Quality standards apply to all waters that are

designated General Use, except for those in which mixing is allowed.

See

35 Ill. Adm. Code

Section 302.208. ExxonMobil claims that the Agency has not issued a permit for the Joliet

Refinery’s TDS discharges into the Des Plaines River because Section 302.102(b)(9) of the

Board’s rules does not allow for a mixing zone when the water quality of the receiving water is

already in violation for the constituent in question, as is the case here.

See

Pet. at 1. There are

occasional violations of TDS in the Des Plaines River in the months of November through April,

which petitioner claims are the result of “snow-melt conditions and the resulting run-off of

dissolved solids.”

Id.

at 3.

ExxonMobil filed an application for the Joliet Refinery’s current NPDES permit renewal

on December 2, 2002.

Id.

at 7. The modified NPDES permit does not include an effluent limit

for TDS.

Id.

at 7, Pet. Exh. 4. Illinois does not have specific effluent limits on TDS.

See

Pet. at

11-12. If effluent limits were implemented for a source, those limits would be based upon the

Water Quality Based Effluent Limits.

Id.

Under such a scenario, water quality standards must

be achieved at the edge of the mixing zone.

Id.

at 12.

In 1997, ExxonMobil commissioned a study to evaluate the mixing zone and zone of

initial dilution from the Joliet Refinery discharge point into the Des Plaines River.

See

PC 2 Att.

14. ExxonMobil filed a copy of this study with its post-hearing comments.

Id.

Based on the

1997 mixing zone determination, ExxonMobil estimates a 21:1 dilution of the total discharge

from the refinery.

Id.

and PC. 2. Att. 14. ExxonMobil projects that under the proposed rule,

there would be an increase of 91 mg/L of TDS at the edge of the mixing zone.

Id.

However, ExxonMobil asserts that the Agency “has developed substantial information

showing the sulfate water quality standard should be much higher – roughly at or above the TDS

levels proposed herein for the winter months.” Pet. at 4.

Mr. Huff asserts that the Agency has secured approval from USEPA for a proposal to

eliminate the TDS General Use Water Quality Standard.

See

Pet. Pre-File Test. at 6-7 and PC 2

at 5. Mr. Huff claims that ExxonMobil would no longer need the proposed site-specific rule if

the Board adopts the Agency’s expected proposal.

See

Tr. at 7.

The Agency confirms that it cannot allow a mixing zone where the receiving stream does

not meet the water quality standard for the relevant constituent.

See

Ag. Pre-File Test. at 2.

Therefore, the Agency claims it cannot issue an NPDES permit to ExxonMobil allowing for the

increased discharge of TDS from the facility, absent a rule change.

Id.

Regarding aquatic toxicity effects of TDS, the Agency contends that the new aquatic life

toxicity data indicates the level of sulfate that sensitive species can tolerate. Ag. Pre-File Test. at

3. The Agency finds that when this new information regarding sulfate toxicity is coupled with

existing chloride standards, a TDS concentrative of 3,000 mg/L would be sufficiently protective

and ExxonMobil’s proposed standard clearly falls within that threshold.

Id.

The Agency notes

---

7

that the new sulfate toxicity information was not available when the current sulfate and TDS

water quality standards were adopted by the Board.

Id.

at 3.

The Agency confirms that it plans to propose changes to the current TDS standard for

Secondary Contact Waters and General Use Waters.

See

Tr. at 68. The Agency indicated that it

is prepared to file a petition for changes to the General Use Water Quality standards for TDS,

and the Agency estimates it will file the proposal to change the secondary contact water quality

standard for TDS within a year.

1

Id.

The Agency states that the relevant segment of the Des Plaines River is on the Illinois

303(d) List with uses impaired for aquatic life and fish consumption.

See

Agency Pre-File Test.

at 2. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify water bodies with

impaired water quality.

See

IEPA,

Illinois 2004 Section 303(d) List

, at 1 (Nov. 2004).

Although the relevant segment of the Des Plaines River has had exceedances of the water quality

standard for TDS, those exceedances are not thought to be the cause of the water body’s

placement on the 303(d) list.

See

Ag. Prefiled Test. at 2. In this regard, the Agency notes “the

potential causes of impairments given for the segment at that time were copper,

sedimentation/siltation, other flow regime alterations, total suspended solids (TSS), DDT

(statistical guideline), PCBs, (statistical guideline), mercury (statistical guideline), and total

phosphorus (statistical guideline).”

Id.

The Agency testified that should the Board grant this

rule, the additional discharges from the ExxonMobil Refinery will not impact the 303(d) status

of the Des Plaines River and that TDS and sulfate are not connected with such impairments.

Id.

The Agency has researched the impact of TDS on aquatic life and in that process it

developed a document entitled,

Draft Justification for Changing Water Quality Standards for

Sulfate, Total Dissolved Solids and Mixing Zones

(Jan. 21, 2004). Ag. Prefiled Test. at 2. This

draft was made available to the public, and the Agency believes that ExxonMobil may have

relied upon the conclusions in the draft document in its petition.

Id

. at 4. The Agency asserts

that the “preliminary draft justification is out-dated in some respects, but that the conclusions are

valid.”

Id.

The Agency therefore believes that if ExxonMobil relied on the conclusions of this

document, ExxonMobil is justified in doing so.

Id.

The participants in this rulemaking agree TDS is not toxic to aquatic life in streams

similar to the Des Plaines River. “Toxicity test results on TDS indicate that even the most

sensitive species tested show no adverse effect at the levels likely to be found in the receiving

waters involved in the requested relief.” PC 1 at 2.

The Agency finds that “[t]his site-specific rule will not result in aquatic toxicity” and that

“[t]he additional constituents to be discharged by ExxonMobil, sulfate and TDS, [] have no

1

On October 23, 2006, the Agency filed with the Board a proposal to delete the TDS water

quality standard in Section 302.208 of the Board’s regulations.

See

Proposed Amendments to 35

Ill. Adm. Code 302.102(b)(6), 302.102(b)(8), 302.102(b)(10), 302.208(g), 309.103(c)(3),

405.109(b)(2)(A), 405.109(b)(2)(B), 406.100(d); REPEALED 35 Ill. Adm. Code 406.203, Part

407; and Proposed New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(h), R07-9 at 10-11 (Oct. 23, 2006). The

Board accepted R07-9 for hearing on November 16, 2006.

---

8

bearing on the 303(d) status of the water body.” Agency Post-Hearing Comments at 3, Ag.

Prefiled Test. at 2.

The Agency relied upon and considered a report by Dr. Soucek in reaching its

conclusions to support the proposal.

See

Agency Pre-File Test. at 5. The report is entitled,

Effects of Water Quality on Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Sulfate to Freshwater Biovalves,

Ceriodaphnia dubia, and Hyalella azteca

.

Id.

at 4, Ag. Exh. A, B, C and D. The Agency filed a

copy of the report as an attachment to its Pre-File Testimony.

See

Ag. Exh. A, B, C and D.

Discussion

The Board agrees with ExxonMobil and the Agency that increased concentration of TDS

in the relevant segment of the Des Plaines River will not substantially or significantly adversely

affect the environment. The Board believes that the proposed rule will most likely end any

exceedences of TDS water quality standard in this segment of the Des Plaines River, and

therefore allow for a mixing zone for TDS. The TDS concentration at the edge of the mixing

zone is not expected to violate the new standard.

The Board agrees with ExxonMobil and the Agency that the new aquatic toxicity data for

sulfate presented by the Agency support the petitioner’s assertion that the proposed TDS water

quality standard of 1,686 mg/L for the affected segment of the Des Plaines River is within the

toxicity threshold and protective of aquatic life. Further, the Board agrees with the participants

that this segment of the Des Plaines River’s impairment status under Section 303(d) of the Clean

Water Act will most likely not be affected by an increased limit for TDS. The Board is

convinced by the participants’ assertion that a higher limit for TDS in this segment of the Des

Plaines River is appropriate.

Further, the Board agrees with the parties that a site-specific rule is the appropriate route

for addressing the Joliet Refinery’s expected increase in TDS discharges. Because the proposed

increased concentration limit in the receiving water is not expected to cause substantially adverse

environmental impacts, and since the Agency cannot issue a permit with an effluent limit for

TDS under the current standard because of previous exceedences in the receiving water, a site-

specific rule is appropriate here.

Impact of Rule on Other Dischargers

CITGO

ExxonMobil in its petition for a site-specific rule claims that based on the information the

Agency provides, no other parties discharge substantial quantities of TDS into this stretch of the

Des Plaines River and therefore, other dischargers would not be affected by this request. Pet. at

4. However, the Board previously granted a variance to CITGO Petroleum Corporation and

PDV Midwest Refining (CITGO) for their oil refinery in Lemont, Will County. CITGO

Petroleum Corporation and PDV Midwest Refining, L.L.C. v. IEPA, PCB 05-85, slip op. at 1

(Apr. 21, 2005). The variance allowed for increased discharge of TDS into the Chicago Sanitary

and Ship Canal, which flows into the Des Plaines River, because of the installation of a WGS at

---

9

that facility.

Id.

The Board directed ExxonMobil to address the impact of the proposed site-

specific rule on the variance the Board previously granted to the Lemont refinery.

See

Revisions

to the Water Quality Standards for Total Dissolved Solids in the Lower Des Plaines River

Exxonmobil Oil Corporation: Proposed 35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.445, PCB R06-24, slip op. at 3

(Mar. 2, 2006).

The prefiled testimony of James E. Huff, on behalf of ExxonMobil, addresses this issue.

See

Pet. Pre-File Test. Mr. Huff testified that the increase in average TDS loading to the River

from the Lemont Refinery and the Joliet Refinery combined will be 348,000 pounds per day. Tr.

at 6. Mr. Huff’s report entitled,

Predicted Water Quality Impacts on the Des Plaines River from

the Proposed Wet Gas Scrubber From ExxonMobil Joliet Refinery

, further details the expected

impact of the proposed site-specific rule on the CITGO variance and the combined impact of the

increased discharges from the ExxonMobil Joliet Refinery and the CITGO Lemont Refinery.

See

Pet. Exh. 6 at 4. Mr. Huff finds that the combined contribution from the CITGO Lemont

Refinery and the ExxonMobil Joliet Refinery will not cause water quality violations for TDS in

the Illinois River further downstream.

Id.

at 4.

In response to the Board’s request for more information regarding the impact of the

proposed rule on the previously granted CITGO variance, Mr. Huff’s report identifies several

regulatory schemes that he believes may impact CITGO’s ability to obtain a permit. Pet. Exh. 6

at 5. Illinois does not have specific effluent limits on nitrates, sulfates or TDS, so limits would

therefore have to be based on water quality standards.

Id.

Further, Mr. Huff points to the fact

that USEPA has not promulgated categorical effluent limits for sulfate, TDS, or nitrate. The

report refers to the

Illinois Water Quality Report 2002

, which lists the Ship Canal and the Des

Plaines River as impaired waterways and states that none of the reasons for impairment are

attributable to sulfates or TDS.

Id.

at 6. Mr. Huff predicts that the expected impact on the

receiving stream will be incremental and not negative.

Id.

Mr. Huff concludes “there is

sufficient assimilative capacity in the Des Plaines River for the [WGS] blowdown from both

refineries.”

Id.

at 6.

The Agency asserts that this site-specific rulemaking would make some of the conditions

of the CITGO variance unnecessary. This rule would also make a portion of the CITGO

variance unnecessary, specifically the segment of the Des Plaines River downstream of the

ExxonMobil discharge. PC 1 at 2. The Agency states that should this site-specific rule be

adopted, CITGO will continue to need the variance, but conditions 3, 5, 6, 7, and 10 will no

longer be necessary.

Id.

Discussion

The Board finds that the proposed rule is not in conflict with the variance the Board

previously granted to the CITGO Lemont Refinery. Although the proposed rule might make a

portion of the CITGO variance and conditions therein unnecessary, this is not determinative to

the Board’s decision regarding the current site-specific rule. The Board finds the impact of the

proposed rule on the previously granted variance negligible, and will proceed accordingly.

Dischargers other than CITGO

---

10

The Agency notes that the Channohon wastewater treatment facility, BASF, the

ExxonMobil tank farm, Loder Cronklaan and the Dow Chemical polystyrene plant are the

dischargers into the Des Plaines River downstream of the ExxonMobil Refinery within the

applicable segment of the site-specific rule.

See

Ag. Prefiled Test. at 3. The Agency asserts that

none of these sources discharge high levels of TDS nor indicate the need for water quality based

TDS limitations.

Id.

Discussion

Based on the record, the Board finds that the proposed rule will not adversely impact the

other dischargers into the relevant segment of the Des Plaines River.

Lack of Alternatives to the Proposed Site-Specific Rule

ExxonMobil claims that available technologies for removing TDS from the wastewater

are limited.

See

Pet at 14, PC 2 at 3. ExxonMobil elaborates on the feasibility of a number of

control technologies and concludes that none are feasible to control TDS in the effluent from this

refinery. Electrodialysis, ExxonMobil alleges, has never been applied in the refinery industry

“on the scale required at the refinery.”

Id.

In addition, ExxonMobil contends that biological

sulfate reduction allegedly will not reduce overall TDS concentrations, and that reverse osmosis

concentration will not work because the concentration of sodium sulfate is too high here.

Id.

ExxonMobil asserts that the option of using evaporation/crystallization is energy-

intensive, would cause an increase in air emissions of carbon dioxide, the removal of existing

tankage to provide space for the system, and would cost $36,000,000 to $56,000,000, with an

additional $1,000,000 in operating costs annually. Pet. at 15 –16. ExxonMobil further claims

that evaporation/crystallization has not been used by other refineries using similar WGS systems,

and therefore, ExxonMobil believes further assessment would be necessary prior to electing such

a method.

Id.

at 16.

ExxonMobil claims that short-term episodic storage is “neither technically feasible nor

economically reasonable.” Pet. at 16. ExxonMobil maintains that it would have to remove

existing tankage to make space for a 200,000-barrel storage tank and other equipment; that short-

term episodic storage would require at a cost of $13,200,000; and that, therefore, short-term

episodic storage is neither economically reasonable nor technically feasible.

Id.

The Agency agrees with ExxonMobil that treating the refineries effluent for TDS is not

“economically or technically feasible.” Post-Hearing Comments at 3.

Discussion

The Board agrees with the participants that “economically or technically feasible”

treatment options that would allow the Joliet Refinery to comply with current water quality

standards for TDS in the receiving waters are not available. Accordingly, the Board finds that

the proposal is economically reasonable and technically feasible, and will proceed to second-

notice review.

---

11

Additional Considerations

The Agency consulted DNR regarding the presence of threatened or endangered species

that may be affected by the proposed rule. On December 19, 2005, DNR responded that “no

threatened and endangered species or natural areas were affected.” Agency Prefiled Test. at 2;

PC 1, Att.

The Agency stated that ExxonMobil’s site-specific request is consistent with the federal

regulations at 40 C.F.R. 131 .11(b)(1)(ii), which allows a federal site-specific water quality

criterion when sensitive species of aquatic life have been demonstrated to be protected by the

new standard through laboratory test toxicity. Tr. at 35-36. In this regard, the Agency testified

that USEPA Region 5 has given preliminary approval of the ExxonMobil site-specific standard

under its obligation to review state water quality standards under the Clean Water Act. Tr. at 36.

In this regard, the Agency cites a USEPA letter dated April 24, 2006, wherein the USEPA states

it had reviewed the information regarding the technical basis for the proposed site-specific rule

and determined that such rule would be in keeping with Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act

and 40 C.F.R. 131.11.

See

PC 1 at 3. ExxonMobil included a copy of the letter the Agency

wrote to USEPA requesting approval of the proposed rule as an attachment to its petition.

See

Pet. Exh. 3.

Discussion

Based upon the DNR finding, it is clear that the proposed rule will not impact threatened

or endangered species. In addition, the USEPA has found that Section 303(c) of the Clean Water

Act and 40 C.F.R. 131.11 are not impediments to the adoption of the proposed site-specific rule.

CONCLUSION

For second-notice consideration by JCAR, the Board proposes new site-specific TDS

water quality standards for a designated portion of the lower Des Plaines River. As proposed,

the standards would appear in new Section 303.445. The Board also makes several clarifying

changes to the Part 303 table of contents and source note, none of which warrant discussion.

The proposed water quality standard are needed because ExxonMobil’s wastewater

effluent will have higher TDS levels once the new WGS air pollution equipment is operating at

the Joliet Refinery. ExxonMobil is adding the WGS because the company must reduce air

emissions under a consent decree with USEPA and several states. Based on this record, the

increased concentration of TDS in the lower Des Plaines River will not cause substantially

adverse environmental impacts. Further, the Board finds that the proposed site-specific rule is

technically feasible and economically reasonable and will not have an adverse economic impact

on the People of Illinois.

See

415 ILCS 5/27(a), (b) (2004).

ORDER

---

12

The Board proposes the following new rule for second notice and directs the Clerk to

submit the proposal to JCAR. Additions to the rules proposed for first notice are double-

underlined; deletions appear stricken.

TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE C: WATER POLLUTION

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART 303

WATER USE DESIGNATIONS AND SITE-SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

SUBPART A: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section

303.100

Scope and Applicability

303.101

Multiple Designations

303.102

Rulemaking Required

SUBPART B: NONSPECIFIC WATER USE DESIGNATIONS

Section

303.200

Scope and Applicability

303.201

General Use Waters

303.202

Public and Food Processing Water Supplies

303.203

Underground Waters

303.204

Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Waters

303.205

Outstanding Resource Waters

303.206

List of Outstanding Resource Waters

SUBPART C: SPECIFIC USE DESINGATIONS AND SITE

SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Section

303.300

Scope and Applicability

303.301

Organization

303.311

Ohio River Temperature

303.312

Waters Receiving Fluorspar Mine Drainage

303.321

Wabash River Temperature

303.322

Unnamed Tributary of the Vermilion River

303.323

Sugar Creek and Its Unnamed Tributary

303.326

Unnamed Tributary of Salt Creek, Salt Creek, and Little Wabash River

303.331

Mississippi River North Temperature

303.341

Mississippi River North Central Temperature

303.351

Mississippi River South Central Temperature

303.352

Unnamed Tributary of Wood River Creek

---

13

303.353

Schoenberger Creek; Unnamed Tributary of Cahokia Canal

303.361

Mississippi River South Temperature

303.400

Bankline Disposal Along the Illinois Waterway/River

303.430

Unnamed Tributary to Dutch Creek

303.431

Long Point Slough and Its Unnamed Tributary

303.441

Secondary Contact Waters

303.442

Waters Not Designated for Public Water Supply

303.443

Lake Michigan Basin

303.444

Salt Creek, Higgins Creek, West Branch of the DuPage River, Des Plaines River

303.445

Total Dissolved Solids Water Quality Standard for the Lower Des Plaines River

SUBPART D: THERMAL DISCHARGES

Section

303.500

Scope and Applicability

303.501

Lake Sangchris Thermal Discharges

303.APPENDIX A

References to Previous Rules

303.APPENDIX B

Sources of Codified Sections

AUTHORITY: Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Sections 11(b) and 27 of the

Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/13, 11(b) and 27].

SOURCE: Filed with the Secretary of State January 1, 1978; amended at 2 Ill. Reg. 27, p. 221,

effective July 5, 1978; amended at 3 Ill. Reg. 20, p. 95, effective May 17, 1979; amended at 5 Ill.

Reg. 11592, effective October 19, 1981; codified at 6 Ill. Reg. 7818; amended at 6 Ill. Reg.

11161, effective, September 7, 1982; amended at 7 Ill. Reg. 8111, effective June 23, 1983;

amended in R87-27 at 12 Ill. Reg. 9917, effective May 27, 1988; amended in R87-2 at 13 Ill.

Reg. 15649, effective September 22, 1989; amended in R87-36 at 14 Ill. Reg. 9460, effective

May 31, 1990; amended in R86-14 at 14 Ill. Reg. 20724, effective December 18, 1990; amended

in R89-14(C) at 16 Ill. Reg. 14684, effective September 10, 1992; amended in R92-17 at 18 Ill.

Reg. 2981, effective February 14, 1994; amended in R91-23 at 18 Ill. Reg. 13457, effective

August 19, 1994; amended in R93-13 at 19 Ill. Reg. 1310, effective January 30, 1995; amended

in R95-14 at 20 Ill. Reg. 3534, effective February 8, 1996; amended in R97-25 at 22 Ill. Reg.

1403, effective December 24, 1997; amended in R01-13 at 26 Ill. Reg. 3517, effective February

22, 2002; amended in R03-11 at Ill. Reg. 3071, effective February 4, 2004; amended in R06-24

at 31 Ill. Reg. ___ _____, effective __________.

SUBPART C: SPECIFIC USE DESIGNATIONS AND SITE

SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Section 303.445

Total Dissolved Solids Water Quality Standard for the Lower Des Plaines

River

---

14

a)

Beginning November 1 and continuing through April 30 of each year, the

total dissolved solids (TDS) water quality standard for Secondary Contact

and Indigenous Aquatic lifeLife Use waters in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.407

does not apply to the portion of the Des Plaines River from the

ExxonMobil refinery wastewater treatment plant discharge point located at

Interstate 55 and Arsenal Road (said point being located in Will County,

T34N, R9E, S15, Latitude: 41º, 25’, 20” North, Longitude: 88º, 11’, 20”

West) and continuing to the Interstate 55 bridge. TDS levels in suchthese

waters must instead meet a water quality standard for TDS (STORET

Number 70300) of 1,686 mg/L.

b)

Beginning November 1 and continuing through April 30 of each year, the

TDS water quality standard for General Use Waters in 35b Ill. Adm. Code

302.208 does not apply to the Des Plaines River from the Interstate 55

bridge to the confluence of the Des Plaines River with the Kankakee

River. TDS levels in suchthese waters must instead meet water quality

standard for TDS (STORET Number 70300) of 1,685 mg/L.

Source: Added at 31 Ill. Reg. ______, effective _________)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution control Board, certify that the Board

adopted the above opinion and order on December 7, 2006, by a vote of 4-0.

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board