IN THE MATTER OF
:
)
R97-28
SITE SPECIFIC PETITION OF
)
(Water - Regulatory)
MOBIL OIL CORPORATION FOR
)
RELIEF FROM 35 ILL. ADM . CODE 304
.122,
)
AMMONIA NITROGEN EFFLUENT STANDARDS )
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Ms . Dorothy Gunn
Margaret P . Howard, Esq .
Clerk
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Pollution Control Board
2200 Churchill Road
100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500
Springfield, Illinois 62794
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this day I have filed with the Illinois Pollution
Control Board the PETITIONER'S POST-HEARING BRIEF
on behalf of Mobil Oil
Corporation. Copies are attached and served upon you .
Respectfully submitted,
Dated
: July 28, 1997
ROSS & HARDIES
James T . Harrington, Esq .
David L . Rieser, Esq.
David A. Piech, Esq.
150 North Michigan Avenue
Suite 2500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 558-1000
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
RECEIVED
CLERK'S OFFICE
JUL 2 8 1997
POLLUTION
STATE OF
CONTROL
ILLINOISBOARS'
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
SITE SPECIFIC PETITION OF
)
R97-28
MOBIL OIL CORPORATION FOR
)
(Water - Regulatory)
RELIEF FROM 35 ILL . ADM. CODE 304
.122,
)
AMMONIA NITROGEN EFFLUENT STANDARDS
)
PETITIONER'S POST-HEARING BRIEF
The Petitioner, Mobil Oil Corporation, ("Mobil") by and through its attorneys,
Ross & Hardies, files this post-hearing brief in support of its petition for site specific relief
from 35 Ill . Adm. Code 304 .122
. Mobil states that it presented evidence in the record which
completely supports the requested relief pursuant to the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
("Act") and asks the Board to adopt the site specific regulation proposed for 35 Ill
. Adm.
Code 304 .214 .
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mobil has always sought to bring its Joliet Refinery into compliance with
Pollution Control Board regulations regarding ammonia nitrogen effluent standards
. After
several variances regarding ammonia nitrogen, Mobil sought and obtained site specific relief
when the Board adopted Section 304
.214 on January 7, 1988 . (In the matter of
: Proposal of
Mobil Oil Corporation to Amend the Water Pollution Regulations,
R84-16) . The Board
limited that relief, however, by providing that it would expire after five years
.
Although Mobil achieved complete compliance with the Board's general
ammonia nitrogen effluent standard during the time of the site specific relief, modifications
to the treatment system to comply with other environmental regulations resulted in
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CLERK'S
RECEIVEDOFFICE
JUL 2 8 1997
diminished nitrification
. In 1993, Mobil sought and obtained an additional variance in order
to investigate and attempt to correct the source of the nitrification problem .
(Mobil Oil Corp
v. IEPA, PCB 93-151) . This variance was extended by one year when Mobil determined
that it needed additional time to evaluate the operation of the treatment facility after the
completion of modifications recommended as a result of the investigation . (Mobil Oil Corp .
v .IEPA, PCB 96-214) .
Having thoroughly evaluated the treatment facility's ability to achieve
consistent nitrification and having reevaluated other compliance options, Mobil filed this site
specific petition on April 24, 1997
. The Board granted a waiver of the requirement to obtain
200 signatures and appropriate hearing notices were issued . Mobil witnesses testified at a
hearing held on July 2, 1997 in Bolingbrook, Illinois
. The Agency appeared at the hearing
and stated that it agreed with the relief
. No members of the public testified at the hearing .
TESTIMONY PRESENTED AT THE HEARING
Mobil presented three witnesses at the hearing, Lilliana Gachich,
Environmental Advisor for the Joliet Refinery
; Dr John Koon, Principal of Parsons
Engineering Science Inc . and James H
. Huff of the consulting firm, Huff & Huff . Each
witness prefiled testimony, which was admitted as an exhibit at the hearing, and then
summarized that testimony at the hearing
. Each witness was questioned by Board member
Dr. Flemal regarding different aspects of their testimony
.
Ms
. Lilliana Gachich testified regarding plant operations and the
configurement of the wastewater treatment plant. ("WWTP") (Exhibit 1, T.13-30 .`-')
She
described the elements of the WWTP and stated that it met federal Best Available Treatment
(BAT) effluent standards regarding discharge and flow levels
. (Exhibit 1, p
. 1)
. She also
noted that Mobil's efforts to conserve water used in the plant resulted in a less dilute
wastewater which exacerbated the ammonia nitrogen compliance problems . (T. 15). She
described the historical performance of the WWTP, which showed improvement during the
time of the previous site specific relief and then decline in nitrification efficiency after the
installation of additional treatment equipment in 1992
. (T. 15-16) .
Ms
. Gachich outlined Mobil's efforts to investigate the source of the
nitrification problems after the 1993 variance . (T . 16-17, Exhibit 1, p.4)
. These included an
optimization study and a study of potential inhibition sources in each of the waste streams
.
These studies determined that the Benzene Reduction Unit, installed in compliance with
RCRA and NESHAPS regulations actually increased the toxicity of the wastewater, which
affected nitrification . (Id .) Several other findings were made which led to substantial
upgrades to the WWTP
. These included replacement of caustic Merox Gasoline Treaters
with non-caustic treaters and upgrading the WWTP itself to improve the performance of the
clarifiers and aeration units . (T . 17-18) .
Ms
. Gachich further testified that while these latest changes had improved
performance significantly, they had not led to consistent compliance . (T . 18) . She noted
'-! References to the Transcript are denoted as "T."
and then the page, i.e . "T . 5 ."
-3-
several exceedences from both known and unknown causes . She also explained that
consistent nitrification would always be difficult to achieve because the crude oil sources to
the refinery varied greatly in their nitrogen content
.
(T .19-20) .
Dr
. John Koon testified next for Mobil . Dr. Koon had prepared a study of the
WWTP particularly with respect to nitrification (Exhibit
3) and he presented the results of
that study in his testimony . (T. 33-42, Exhibit
4) .
Dr
. Koon confirmed Ms . Gachich's
description of the WWTP, the nitrification inhibition studies and the upgrades which were
performed
. He stated that the results of the studies were that degradation products in the
biological system inhibited nitrification and that inhibitory influences could not be removed
by treating or modifying influent waste streams
. (T . 37-38) .
Dr. Koon also evaluated the WWTP as a whole and found that it was properly
designed and consistent with industry practice and guidelines . (T .39-40, Exhibit 4, p .9) .
Dr. Koon agreed with Ms
. Gachich that the facility met and exceeded BAT Standards for the
facility's category and stated that the facility actually discharged
18% of the ammonia
nitrogen allowed under BAT . (Exhibit 3, pp .4-8 - 4-11)
Finally, Dr . Koon evaluated alternative treatment strategies
. In his report he
identified three which Mobil evaluated
: powdered activated carbon (PACT) ; ion exchange ;
and breakpoint chlorination . (Exhibit 3, pp . 4-11 - 4-17) His report found that the
additional cost to implement these strategies would range from
$2 .2 million to $9 .2 million
in capital costs and $ .8 million to $1 .9 million in additional operating costs . (Id .) He
testified that the incremental costs of removing these additional pounds of ammonia nitrogen
-4-
would increase 7 to 20 times depending on the option selected
. (Exhibit 4, pp . 10-11)
These options would have additional environmental costs, including additional sludge
disposal, handling of chlorine and required dechlorination
. (Exhibit 3, Table 4 .7) He
concluded his testimony by stating that requiring further modification to achieve consistent
compliance with the Board's general effluent standard would be technically infeasible and
economically unreasonable
. (T. 41) .
Mr. James Huff then testified regarding the lack of environmental impact of
the proposed relief and the basis for selecting the site specific effluent standards proposed by
Mobil . (T
.
42-55, Exhibit 6) .
He testified that he had prepared a report on behalf of Mobil
to evaluate the area available for mixing in the receiving stream, the Des Plaines River, and
used that information and USEPA guidance to arrive at three options for setting effluent
standards . (Exhibit 5) .
Mr. Huff took measurements in the Des Plaines River to identify the size of
the plume of Mobil's discharge and tracked that plume to the Interstate
55 Bridge, the
dividing line between the Secondary Contact waters and General Use waters . (T .45-46)
.
Using ammonia nitrogen values calculated based on the identified plume size, he confirmed
that the requested relief would be protective of water quality standards . (Id.)
He then calculated alternate effluent standards based on a USEPA Technical
Guidance document favored by the IEPA and arrived at the values proposed for consideration
in this petition . (T.47). He also evaluated the current NPDES limits?' and confirmed that
2/
The NPDES permit for the facility was included in the record as Exhibit 2
.
-5-
the maximum and average values derived from the USEPA technical Guidance document
were the most stringent of the three alternatives . (T .48) . He stated conclusively that the
effluent discharged at these values would not come close to, let alone violate the water
quality standards either for the Secondary Contact or the General Use sections of the Des
Plaines River
. (T.48-49) .
In the course of evaluating the plume size, Mr
. Huff also measured unionized
ammonia nitrogen water quality values downstream of the facility
. He found that these were
in compliance with the Boards Secondary Contact and General Use water quality standards
and demonstrated improvement in water quality since the last measurements were taken at
these locations . (T
.49-51)
.
THE TESTIMONY SUPPORTS MOBIL'S CLAIM FOR RELIEF
The Board should grant Mobil's site specific relief because Mobil's petition
was completely supported by the testimony and exhibits presented at the hearing, agreed to
by the Agency and unrebutted by any information presented in the record
. Section 27(a) of
the Act allows the Board to adopt "regulations specific to individual persons or sites ." This
section requires the Board to take into account numerous factors including the character of
the area involved, the nature of the receiving water body and the technical feasibility and
economic reasonableness of reducing the type of pollution involved .
Mobil submits that the testimony and exhibits of its witnesses meets the
requirements of Section 27(a) in justifying Mobil's claim for relief . Ms
. Gachich and Dr .
Koon thoroughly described the refinery and the operation of its waste water treatment
6-
system .
They both also described Mobil's extraordinary efforts to identify the source of the
problem which precludes Mobil from achieving consistent compliance with the Board's
ammonia nitrogen effluent standards
. They testified that Mobil has expended nearly $8
million dollars in the last four years in order to investigate the source of the nitrification
problem and to modify the system to optimize its ability to provide nitrification and meet the
required standards . Dr
. Koon testified that the current waste water treatment system is
consistent with industry standards . In fact, he testified that if the refinery had not opted to
use stringent water conservation practices, it might not have an ammonia nitrogen compliance
problem
.
Dr
. Koon also described in detail, both in his report and in his testimony, the
costs that would be incurred in installing additional treatment to meet the effluent standards
.
He stated in his testimony (Exhibit 4, p . 10) that the costs of the compliance alternatives
were prohibitive, involving substantially higher per pound costs for ammonia nitrogen
removal.
Finally, Mr
. Huff testified that the releases at the requested effluent standards
would not impact compliance with the water quality standards either on the Secondary
Contact waterway to which the refinery discharges or on the General Use waterway some
1000 feet below the outfall . The effluent standards are based on USEPA Guidance
encouraged for use by the IEPA in evaluating effluent standards and the IEPA agrees that
these effluent standards are appropriate .
-7-
The relief requested is plainly consistent with Federal law
. Federal regulations
require facilities to meet effluent standards included in NPDES permits based on BAT
standards adopted for individual industries . Ms
. Gachich and Dr . Koon both testified that
the Mobil facility meets and exceeds that BAT requirements for its industry category
. Mobil
will continue to meet and exceed these federal requirements and the issuance of this relief
will have no impact on Mobil's compliance with those standards .
The Board should grant site specific relief because consistent compliance with
the effluent standard has been shown to be technically infeasible and economically
unreasonable and the requested effluent standards will not threaten water quality for the
receiving stream
. Mobil has made strenuous efforts to achieve compliance and, while those
efforts have led to significant improvements in the ability of its wastewater treatment system
to achieve a high level of nitrification, they have not led to a consistent and reliable level of
compliance . In other cases the Board has granted relief where compliance with an effluent
standard was shown to have an extremely high cost but no environmental impact since water
quality was not affected . (In the Matter of Amerock Corporation, Rockford Facility,
R87-33). In this case, Mobil has spent millions of dollars and has upgraded its facility
significantly to achieve compliance but has not been able to ensure that it will consistently
meet the Board's regulations . Mobil has also demonstrated that the relief will have no
significant environmental impact
. Mobil has worked closely with the Agency regarding this
ammonia nitrogen issues and the Agency agrees that the requested relief should be granted .
In light of these facts, site specific relief is appropriate and should be granted .
-8-
As a final matter, Dr
. Flemal asked at the hearing whether the relief should be
expressed in terms of a "daily composite" as had been done when the Board originally
adopted Section 304 .214, or as a "daily maximum" as proposed here
. (T. 56) . It is Mobil's
and the Agency's intention that the term refer to a limitation which can not be exceeded
based on one day's composite sample
. The Agency encouraged the use of "daily maximum"
in this proposal because it is consistent with the terms of the NPDES permit issued to the
facility (Exhibit 2) as well as the Agency's authority to set NPDES conditions . (35 Ill . Adm .
Code 309 .143)
. While not used consistently, the terms "maximum" or "daily maximum"
have been used to express other site specific relief limits . (See 35 III
. Adm. Code 304 .209
and 304 .213)
. Mobil requests that the term "daily maximum" be used here, since it is
consistent with the NPDES permit which would calculate that daily maximum by the use of a
24 hour composite sample .
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated in this petition, MOBIL OIL
CORPORATION respectfully requests this Board to grant Mobil's petition and adopt the
following site specific regulation :
Section 304 .214
a) This Section applies to discharges from Mobil Oil Corporation's
Refinery, located near Joliet, into the Des Plaines River
.
b) The requirements of Section 304
.122(b) shall not apply to Mobil's
discharge . Instead Mobil's discharge shall not exceed the following
limitations :
------------------------------------------CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATION (mg/1)
---------------------------------------- --
DATED
: July 28, 1997
ROSS & HARDIES
James T
. Harrington
David L. Rieser
150 North Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60601-7567
(312) 558-1000
c) Section 304
.104(a) shall not apply to this Section
. Monthly average and
daily composites are as defined in Section 304
.104(b) .
d) Mobil shall monitor the nitrogen concentration of its oil feedstocks and
report on an annual basis such concentrations to the Agency
. The report shall
be filed with the Agency by January 31 of each year
.
Respectfully submitted
MOBIL OIL CORPORATION
One o'
"~meys
Ammonia Nitrogen
Monthly Average
9 .0
Daily Maximum
23
.0
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, DAVID L. RIESER, an attorney, hereby certify that on July 28, 1997, I
caused copies of the foregoing PETITIONER'S POST-HEARING BRIEF
to be served
upon:
Ms. Dorothy Gunn
Margaret P
. Howard, Esq .
Clerk
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Pollution Control Board
2200 Churchill Road
100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500
Springfield, Illinois 62794
