BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF:
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION and
PDV MIDWEST REFINING, L.L.C.,
Petitioners,
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB
_
(Variance - Water)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Dorothy
M. Gunn, Clerk
Douglas Scott, Director
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500
1021 N. Grand Avenue East, P.O. Box 19274
Chicago, IL 60601
Springfield,
IL 62794-9274
James
A. Day, Office of General Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 N. Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19274
Springfield, IL 62794-9274
Please take notice that on November 14,2007, we filed electronically with the Office
of
the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board the attached Petition for Extension of
Variance, a copy of which is served upon you.
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION and
PDV MID
T
FINING, L.L.C.
Jeffrey
C. Fort
Ariel J. Tesher
Sonnenschein Nath
&
Rosenthal LLP
7800 Sears Tower
233
S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION and
PDV MIDWEST REFINING, L.L.C.,
Petitioners,
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB
_
(Variance - Water)
PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF VARIANCE
PDV Midwest Refining, L.L.C. ("PDVMR") and CITGO Petroleum Corporation petition
the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board") for an extension
of dates to undertake certain
actions as contained in an existing variance authorizing discharges
of Total Dissolved Solids
("TDS"). See PCB 05-95, issued April 21, 2005.
PDVMR is the owner ofthe Refinery
described herein, and CITGO Petroleum Corporation is the operator
of the Refinery. (Hereafter,
these Petitioners will be jointly referred to as "CITGO"). This Petition is brought pursuant to
Section 35
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/35, and Part 104 of Chapter 35 of the Illinois Administrative
Code, 35 lAC § 104.100 et seq. In support
of this Petition, CITGO states as follows:
I.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
1.
In November, 2004, CITGO sought a variance from the Board'swater quality
standards for TDS in relation to an agreement CITGO had reached with U.S. EPA, the State
of
Illinois and other states. The Board granted that relief in an opinion and order entered April 21,
2005. That order is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated here by reference.
12324109\V-6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
2.
Since the granting of the referenced variance several material facts have changed.
First, the Board increased the water quality standard for total dissolved solids at the I-55 Bridge
in the Des Plaines River, and in the Des Plaines River to its confluence with the Kankakee River.
See Revisions to Water Quality Standards for Total Dissolved Solids in the Lower Des Plaines
River ExoxonMobil Oil Corporation,
R06-24 (Site-Specific Rulemaking - Water), Board Order
(February 15, 2007). Had this order been in effect in 2004 when the prior variance was filed,
one
of the two places where the TDS standard had been exceeded would not have been a
violation. Second, the Board has proposed a First Notice to eliminate the water quality standard
for TDS in General Use waters.
See Triennial Review ofSulfate and Total Dissolved Solids
Water Quality Standards,
R07-09, (Rulemaking - Water) Board Order (September 20,2007).
The Agency is the proponent
of this change and no one has testified against that part of the
Agency'sproposal. This leaves the odd situation of there being a water quality standard for TDS
in the Chicago Sanitary
&
Ship Canal ("Canal"), but either a higher level, or no standard at all in
the general use waters downstream. Third, CITGO indeed participated in the proceedings in
R07-09 and requested that the Board exempt its discharge from meeting a TDS water quality
standard. While the Board declined to make such a change in the proceeding dealing with the
General Use standard, it did state that CITGO could, and perhaps should, seek
to extend the
dates for taking certain actions as expected by certain conditions
of the variance.
See Id.,
p. 30.
Fourth, the Agency has finally proposed to remove the TDS standard in the Canal (R08-09), a
statement which has been repeated for several years. Therefore, CITGO is filing this Petition to
extend the prior variance, as per
35
Ill.
Admin. Code 104.210. CITGO has undertaken the
activities required by the prior variance; and would propose that the requested variance build
upon the prior variance by making the following extensions to the prior variance order:
2
12324109\V-6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
12324109\V-6
The Board grants CITGO and PDVMR a variance from the TDS water quality
standards
of 35 Ill. Admin. Code 302.208(g) and 302.407, subject to the following
conditions:
1.
The duration of the variance relief from the identified TDS water quality
standards is from April 21, 2005 [date
of Board order] through December 15,
20W12. This variance modifies and extends certain conditions of the variance in
PCB 05-95, entered
Aoril21. 2005.
2.
This variance applies only to petitioners' Lemont Refinery at 135
th
Street
and
New Avenue in Lemont, Will County, regarding elevated TDS levels in the
effluent
of Outfall 001 due to operation of the wet gas scrubber under the Consent
Decree entered January 26, 2005, in the United States District Court
forthe
Southern District of Texas, Case No. H-04-3833.
3.
By October
1, 2006,Petitioners must identify a location near the I-55
Bridge for collecting water samples from the Des Plaines River and secure access
for the sampling.
By November 1, 2006,Petitioners must retain a contractor to
collect TDS samples at that location. From December
1, 2006 tmoughUntil
March 30, 2008, petitioners must collect TDS samples from the Des Plaines River
three times per week during the winter months (December 1 to March 30).
Petitioners must submit the TDS sample results monthly to the Agency.
4.
From December 1, 2006 tmoughUntil March 30, 2008, the effluent of
Outfall 001 must be monitored for TDS two times per week during the winter
months (December 1 to March 30). Petitioners must submit the TDS sample
results monthly to the Agency.
5.
Petitioners must diligently attempt to identify any relationship between
TDS levels in the effluent
of Outfall 001 and TDS levels in the Des Plaines River
at the I-55 Bridge. Petitioners must use any resulting relevant information to
identify the time period that may be needed to hold the FCCU wet gas scrubber
bleed.
6.
By May 1,2-008- 2011, petitioners must begin to size the system needed to
retain the FCCU wet gas scrubber bleed for the maximum number
of days that the
TDS level in the Des Plaines River at the I
55 Bridge e)weeds 1,000 mg/l Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal exceeds the applicable water quality standard for TDS.
7.
By June 1,2-008- 2011, petitioners must begin to design the system needed
to retain the FCCU wet gas scrubber bleed for the maximum number
of days that
the TOS level in the Des Plaines River at the I
55 Bridge exceeds 1,000 mg/l
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal exceeds the applicable water quality standard
for TOS.
8.
By December 1,2-008- 2011. if needed to meet an applicable water quality
standard for TDS, petitioners must submit to the Agency a wastewater
construction permit application for the FCCU wet gas scrubber bleed retention
system.
3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
9.
By March 1,
~
2012, if needed to meet an applicable water quality
standard for TDS, petitioners must begin construction as needed on the FCCD wet
gas scrubber bleed retention system.
10.
By December
1,~
2012, if needed to meet an applicable water quality
standard for TDS, petitioners must operate the FCCD wet gas scrubber bleed
retention system as needed. From December
1,
~
2012 through March 30,
~
2013, if such system is necessary, petitioners must collect TDS samples
from the Des Plaines River
at
the I 55 Bridge e)weeds 1,000 fig/I Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal five days per week (excluding weekends and holidays).
Petitioners must submit the TDS sample results monthly to the Agency.
These adjusted dates are requested so as to avoid unnecessary activities. The proposed
variance basically moves the prior schedule back 3 years.
If the Board acts on this request before
March 30, 2008, the final date in paragraph
10 would need to be adjusted accordingly. Further, if
the Board removes the existing water quality standard for TDS in the Ship Canal, this variance
will become moot according to its terms, and not require further action
by the Board. The prior
Variance Order is attached as Exhibit
A.
3.
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.
4.
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. Ninety percent
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.
5.
The Refinery draws from and discharges to the Canal. The Refinery takes
approximately 5.0 million gallons
of water daily from the Canal, and discharges approximately
4
12324109\V-6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
4.5 million gallons to the Canal, the difference being cooling 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.
6.
TheBoard 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 the prior Variance arose due to
the potential impact both in the Canal and downstream at the I-55 Bridge over the Des Plaines
River.
7.
The Refinery operates under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
("NPDES") permit (No. IL 0001589), issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
("IEPA"). The NPDES permit includes outfall
00 1 at the Refinery at river mile 296.5 on the
Canal (Latitude
41 °38'58", Longitude 88°03 '31"). The current NPDES permit was re-issued
and modified on June 22, 2007; it does not have effluent limits on TDS, but it does reflect the
likelihood of further actions by the Board with respect to the Refinery.
It
is attached as Exhibit
B.
8.
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
5
123241 09\V-6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
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.
9.
The primary treatment portion of the current plant consists of four sour water
strippers for ammonia and sulfide removal, oil/water separators for free oil removal, and
equalization tanks.
10.
Effluent from the equalization tanks flows to the secondary treatment plant which
consists
of induced gas flotation ("IGF") and activated sludge treatment system. The activated
sludge system includes three aeration basins operated in parallel with a total aeration basin
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 equalization tank to maintain operating temperatures at a minimum
of 70°F in the
aeration basin effluent.
11.
The tertiary system consists of a 16-million gallon basin. The purpose of the
basin is to remove any carryover solids from the secondary clarifier. The basin also serves as a
water supply for fire protection.
12.
Since 1987, the Refinery has 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 contaminants in its wastewater. In the last ten years, the
Refinery has invested $45 million in various upgrades to the wastewater treatment system.
These improvements include: induced gas flotation (with polymer addition) in 2000, additional
strippers in the sour water system in 2003, upgrading diffused aerators in Cell B in 2003,
6
J2324 J09\V-6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
upgrading the feed system for phosphoric acid in 2006, upgrading diffused aerators in Cell A in
2006, a purge treatment unit (PTU) for scrubber discharge in 2007, and upgrading diffused
aerators in Cell C in 2007.
II. EXISTING WATER QUALITY
13.
The Refinery discharges into the Canal, upstream of the 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 I-55 Bridge. Until the I-55 Bridge, the receiving waters
are designated as Secondary Contract waters; below the I-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:
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/l
General Use
1,000
Exxon-Mobil
l
1,686
Secondary Contact
1,500
14.
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
Des Plaines River at I-55 Bridge
1,134
1,260
15.
The General Use Standard is proposed to be deleted in R07-09; the standard for a
portion
of the Lower Des Plaines was changed in R06-24 and would appear to be superseded by
I
Limit applies during winter months from point of discharge to confluence of lower Des Plaines River
with Kankakee River.
7
12324109\V-6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
R07-09. The Agency has just filed a proposal (R08-09) which inter alia, would delete the TDS
standard for Secondary Contact waters.
16.
At the time of the prior variance petition, the peak TDS result at the I-55 Bridge
was 1,194 mg/l, which occurred on January 25, 2001, and on the Canal was 1,595mg/l, which
occurred January 4,2001. Both were likely due to road deicing activities. During the more
recent sampling, the two results in the Canal above 1,500 mg/l were recorded upstream
of the
Refinery discharge: 1,656 mg/l on January
29,2007 and 1,520 mg/l on February 26,2007. See
Exhibit
C. The highest recent levels at the I-55 Bridge was 1,300 mg/l on February 28,2007.
See Exhibit
D.
17.
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.
The design specifications for the wet gas scrubber blowdown will limit the exit temperature to
90°F, before discharge to the basin. Other design features have been made to address nitrates
and ammonia nitrogen levels and avoid the need for relief from any other regulation. The
preliminary estimates are that the scrubbing system would add 304,000 lbs/day
of TDS.
2
2
Assumes all sodium salts.
8
I2324109\V-6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
III. PROJECTED IMPACT OF SCRUBBER
18.
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
@I-55 Bridge
Sulfate, mg/l
TDS, mg/l
20
32
18
29
19.
The projected sulfates would achieve the applicable water quality standards, after
complete mixing, while the TDS probably would continue to exceed the existing water quality
standard for the secondary contact waters to the I-55 Bridge during times
of snow melt run-off.
IV. REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS
20.
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.
21.
Mixing Zone - Under Illinois regulations, the maximum allowable mixing zone is
25 percent
of the stream flow. Water quality standards must be achieved at the edge of the
. 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:
9
12324109\V-6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
Sulfate, mg!l
TDS,
mgll
Projected Increase in WQ
at Edge
of Mixing Zone
81
128
22.
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 wastewater treatment system goes beyond Best Available Technology ("BAT")
requirements.
23.
Impaired Waterways - Section 303(d)
of the Clean Water Act requires states to
identify impaired waterways and the causes
of impairment and then develop what is essentially a
waste load allocation for addressing the impairment. Illinois prepared its list
of impaired
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
of the 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 TDS.
24.
CITGO has conducted the water quality sampling for TDS as required by the
existing variance. Those data continue to show elevated TDS and chloride levels during periods
of snow-melt conditions. The results of the sampling upstream of the Refinery are included in
Exhibit
C, and the sampling at the I-55 Bridge are included in Exhibit D.
It
would appear that
there is no relationship between the discharges from the Refinery and the water quality
conditions relating to TDS, either for the conditions upstream
of the Refinery intake, or for the
conditions at the I-55 Bridge. The recent data does not indicate an exceedance
of the applicable
10
I23241091V-6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
water quality standards at the I-55 Bridge. The highest levels recently recorded was 1,300 ppm,
below both the 1,500 mg/l standard for secondary contact waters upstream
of the bridge and the
1,686 mg/l seasonal standard for general use waters downstream
of the bridge.
25.
If, however, the data recorded at the bridge is to be used, it would appear that the
extent
of elevated TDS levels may be longer than previously thought
--
the 2006-07 winter alone
produced elevated TDS levels over a three week long stretch. While the prior variance condition
assumes that storage could occur for a long enough time
so that the Refinery could avoid
discharging during these events, the length
of time and the volume of water required is greater
than assumed when CITGO put together its compliance plan for the variance in PCB 05-95.
26.
Based on the foregoing, CITGO submits that the relief here requested is not
inconsistent with the effluent standards and areawide planning criteria under the Clean Water
Act.
v.
ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP
27.
The existing variance was caused by the Consent Decree, to which the Agency is
a party, lodged by U.S. EPA to substantially reduce emissions
of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides
and Particulate Matter. CITGO agreed to these reductions and is investing over $140 million at
the Refinery, most
of which costs are for the very wet gas scrubber which generates the TDS and
sulfates identified above. These investments are projected to reduce
S02 emissions by 15,300
tons/year, NOx emissions by 1,100 tons/ year, and PM emissions by 92 tons/year.
28.
The relative contribution from CITGO is readily within the assimilative capacity
of the waterway, and there is no water quality violation for TDS in the Canal, except in
11
12324109\V-6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
association with snow melt conditions. And since the adoption of the modified TDS standard in
the Lower Des Plaines River, as requested by Exxon-Mobil, there is no longer a violation
of the
modified TDS standard for that General Use body
of water.
29.
The Agency has been investigating changes in water quality standards for TDS.
These investigations indicate that the existing TDS standard is unnecessary and that a higher
numerical standard for sulfate would still be protective
of water quality uses. Under the First
Notice proposal in R07-09, TDS would be removed as a water quality parameter, and sulfate
water quality standards would be increased to 1,800 mg/l. We would expect the proposed rule
for TDS in Secondary Contact waters to be no more stringent than for the General Use waters.
At these proposed standards, even during snow melt conditions, there would not be a water
quality exceedance in the Canal. Hence, there would be no reason to store wastewater before
discharging.
30.
Moreover, with the change in the water quality standards downstream, the point to
assess the water quality conditions now would be the Canal, rather than at the I-55 Bridge on the
Lower Des Plaines River.
31.
CITGO has investigated methods
of avoiding releasing the wastewater from the
FCC to the existing wastewater treatment system, including deep well disposal and removal
technologies.
32.
The Agency has rejected the deep well disposal option because 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 migrating upwards. In northeastern Illinois,
no cap rock exists over the depth where disposal wells are drilled. This alternative is not viable.
12
123 24109\V-6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
33.
Technologies for removing sodium sulfate from a dilute aqueous stream are
limited. Electrodialysis has never been 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 replacing the sulfate ions with carbonate ions.
The concentration
of sodium sulfate is too high for reverse osmosis concentration, as scaling
problems would develop.
34.
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
efficient approach. Subsequent crystallization would produce a dry sodium sulfate by-product.
Whether this by-product would be
of sufficient purity to have any market value has not been
determined. Exhibit E depicts a conceptual process flow diagram
of a falling film evaporator
with MVR. A feed pump lifts the steam to the top
of the evaporator, where the water falls
through 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
of the falling-film tubes to become steam. The sodium sulfate crystals are directed to a
centrifuge to concentrate the solids, followed by a dryer producing a dry sodium sulfate by-
product.
35.
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
of this amount representing energy costs. The above cost
estimate assumes the Refinery has sufficient steam capacity, and that a new boiler is not
13
12324\ 091V-6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
required. Moreover, CITOO is not aware of a 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.
36.
Requiring CITOO to install evaporation wastewater treatment for the scrubber
discharges into the wastewater system would impose an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship.
CITOO is not the cause
of any current water quality standard exceedance; upstream conditions in
the Ship Canal from snow melt conditions exceed the existing TDS standard, and the Agency has
asked the Board to remove that standard as well. Further, CITOO is investing substantial monies
in the Refinery to 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
of the increased wastewater discharge would impose an
arbitrary and unreasonable hardship on CITOO.
VI. WAIVER OF REQUEST FOR HEARING
37.
CITOO waives its right to a hearing on this Petition. An affidavit in support of
this Petition is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
VII. CONCLUSION
38.
The hardship to CITOO of compliance with the schedule contained in the prior
variance and 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 at this time. Even
if there is an alternative, such would result in
14
123241 09\V-6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
substantial adverse affects on the environment in the form of increased emissions to evaporate
the wastewater.
39.
In conclusion, CITGO would request that the Board grant CITGO this Variance
for a period
of 5 years from the date of granting this Variance on the conditions proposed herein.
WHEREFORE, CITGO requests that this Petition for Extension
of Variance be granted.
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION and
::vM(jRE7J;:0L.CO
One
f
ts Attorn ys
Dated: November 13, 2007
Jeffrey
C.
Fort
Ariel Tesher
Sonnenschein Nath
&
Rosenthal LLP
7800 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
15
12324109\V-6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that I have served upon the individuals named on
the attached Notice of Filing true and correct copies of the
Petition for Extension of Variance
by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, on November 14,2007.
123241091V-6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
Exhibit A
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 21, 2005
v.
Petitioners,
Respondent.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
PCB 05-85
(Variance - Water)
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION and )
PDV MIDWEST REFINING, L.L.C.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
JEFFREY C. FORT AND LETISSA CARVER REID OF SONNENSCHEIN, NATH
&
ROSENTHAL, L.L.P., APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS; and
JAMES
A.
DAY, DARIN E. LECRONE, AND SCOTT
A.
TWAIr APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by A.S. Moore):
For their oil refinery in Lemont, Will County, CITGO Petrolewn Corporation (CITGO)
and PDV Midwest Refining, L.L.C. (PDVMR) (collectively, petitioners) seek a variance from
two
of the Board'swater quality standards (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(g), 302.407) for Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS). The refinery, called the "Lemont Refinery," is operated by CITGO and
owned
by PDVMR.
The requested variance would last for approximately five years and allow petitioners
greater amounts
of TDS in their wastewater discharge to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (S
& S Canal), which leads to the Des Plaines River. The higher levels ofTDS in petitioners'
effluent will come from air pollution control equipment that petitioners must install and use
under a Consent Decree with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
the
State oflllinois, and several other states. The lllinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) recommends that the Board grant the requested variance, subject to conditions.
DOCKETED
RECEIVED
--.r!W
.
~
n.
DOCKET
D1ARIED
v
BY_---:~
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the Board finds that petitioners have proven that
compliance withtheTDS water quality standards at issue would impose an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship on petitioners. In addition, the Board finds that the requested variance is
not inconsistent with federal law and may be issued without any significant impact on public
health
or the environment. The Board therefore grants petitioners the requested variance, subject
to the conditions set forth in the order following this opinion. The variance reliefbegins today
and lasts through December 15,2009.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
2
In this opinion, the Board first describes the legal framework for variances, followed
by
the procedural history of this case. The Board then provides background on petitioners' facility,
the Consent Decree, the S & S Canal and the Des Plaines River, and the air pollution control
equipment to be installed and the expected impacts from the resulting wastewater
discharge.
Next, the Board sets forth the TDS water quality standards from which petitioners seek relief:
the general use water quality standard and the secondary contact water quality standard. The
Board then discusses the requested variance, including petitioners' proposed compliance plan
and the Agency'srecommendation. Lastly, the Board makes its findings
on hardship,
environmental impact, consistency with federal law, and conditions for the variance.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A "variance is a temporary exemption from any specified rule, regulation, requirement
or
order ofthe Board."
See
35 ill. Adm. Code 104.200(a)(1). Under Title IX ofthe Environmental
Protection Act (Act), 415 ILCS
5/35-38(2002)~
the Board is responsIble for granting variances
when a petitioner demonstrates that immediate compliance with the Board regulation would
impose an "arbitrary or unreasonable hardship" on petitioner.
See
415 ILCS 5/35(a) (2002).
The Board
may grant a variance, however, only to the extent consistent with applicable
federal law.
See
415ILCS 5/35(a) (2002). Further, the Board may issue a variance with or
without conditions, and for only up to five years.
See
415 ILCS 5/36(a) (2002). The Board may'
extend a variance from year to year ifpetitioner shows that it has made satisfactory progress
toward compliance with the regulations from which it received the variance relief.
See
415 ILCS
5/36(b) (2002).
Specifically, as it relates to petitioners' request for a TDS water quality variance, the Act
provides:
To the extent consistent with applicable provisions
ofthe Federal Water Pollution
Control Act
... and regulations pursuant thereto ... :
The Board
may grant individual variances beyond the limitations prescribed in
this Act, whenever it is found, upon presentation of adequate proof, that
compliance
with any-rule or regtilatiol1,requitement
ot
order of the Board would
impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship. 415 ILCS 5/35(a) (2002);
see also
35
m.
Adm; Code 104.200, 104.208, 104.238.
In granting a variance the Board may impose such conditions as the policies of
this Act may require.
***
[A]ny variance granted pursuant to the provisions ofthis Section shall be granted
for such period
oftime, not exceeding five years, as shall be specified by the
Board at the time of the grant ofsuch variance, and upon the condition that the
person who receives such variance shall make such periodic progress reports as
the Board shall specify. 415 ILCS 5/36(a), (b) (2002);
see also
35
m.
Adm. Code
104.200, 104.210, 104.242, 104.244.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
3
The Act requires the Agency to provide public notice of a variance petition, including
notice
by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where petitioner's
facility is located.
See
415 ILCS 5/37(a) (2002); 35
TIL Adm. Code 104.214. The Board will
hold a hearing
on the variance petition ifpetitioner requests a hearing, ifthe Agency or any other
person files a written objection to the variance being granted within
21 days after the newspaper
notice,
or ifthe Board, in its discretion, concludes that a hearing would be advisable.
See 415
ILCS 5/37(a) (2002); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.224, 104.234.
The Act requires the Agency to appear at hearings
on variance petitions (415 ILCS 5/4(t)
(2002»
and to investigate each variance petition and "make a recommendation to the Board as to
the disposition ofthe petition" (415 ILCS 5/37(a) (2002); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.216). At
hearing, the "burden ofproof shall be on the petitioner." 415 ILCS 5/37(a) (2002);
see also 35
Ill. Adm. Code 104.200(a)(1), 104.238(a).
III
a variance proceeding then, the burden is on the
petitioner toprove that immediate compliance with Board regulations would cause an arbitrary
or unreasonable hardship that outweighs public interest in compliance with the
regulations~
See
WillowbrookMotel v. PCB, 135 ill. App.3d 343, 349-50, 481 N.E.2d 1032, 1036-1037 (1st
Dist.
1985)..
.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioners filed their petition for variance on November 8, 2004, requesting a hearing.
On November 18, 2004, the Board accepted the petition for hearing. On February 7,2005, the.
Agency filed its recommendation on the variance petition, which included proof ofpublication of
the variance petition notice on November 26, 2004, in the
Lemont Reporter/Metropolitan.}
This
initial recommendation
ofthe Agency was that the Board should deny the requested variance.
On February 17, 2005, petitioners filed the prefiled testimony oftwo witnesses: Claude
Harmon and James
Huff Petitioners included 15 exhibits associated with the prefiled testimony.
Harmonhas been with CITGO as the Environmental Manager ofthe Lemont Refinery since
1994, and has been in the environmental field for 30 years.
See
Hearing Transcript at 17-18.
Huffis a registered Professional Engineer and Vice President of Huff & Huff, Inc., an
environmental consulting
finn. Over the last 25 years, Huff has been involved in over 30
environmental impact studies associated with wastewater discharge impacts on receiving
streams, including surveys ofthe S
&
S Canal and the Des Plaines River. Huffhas worked with
the Lemont Refinery for the past 22 years on various wastewater issues. Huff was retained by
petitioners to assist in evaluating alternatives for the wastewater stream to be generated by the
new
air
pollution control equipment, identifying associated water quality impacts, preparing
related
pennit applications, and providing technical support on the variance petition.
See
Hearing Transcript at 29-32; Hearing Exhibit
8.
}The Board cites the variance petition as "Pet. at _." The Board cites the Agency's February 7,
2005 recommendation as "Agency Rec. at _."
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
4
Hearing Officer Bradley Halloran conducted the hearing
on the variance petition in
Chicago on February
24,2005. At hearing, the prefiled testimony ofHannon and Huffwas
entered into the record as ifread, and petitioners' 15 exhibits were offered and admitted into the
record, all without objection.
2
The Agency offered no testimony or exhibits. at hearing. Counsel
for the Agency stated on the record
at the close of hearing that with petitioners' submission of
testimony and exhibits, the Agency was prepared to support petitioners' request for variance. Tr.
at 47-48.
The parties agreed to file their post-hearing briefs simultaneously. Petitioners filed their
opening
brief on March 14, 2005. The Agency filed its opening brief on March 15, 2005, in
which the Agency recommended that the Board grant petitioners the requested variance. The
parties waived their opportunity to file response briefs.
3
BACKGROUND
Overview
As noted, PDVMR. owns and CITOO operates the Lemont Refinery, which is located at
135th Street and New Avenue in Lemont, Will County. Exh. 4 at
1; Exh. 11 at 1; Tr. at 13.
Petitioners entered into a Consent Decree with USEPA and the States
of Illinois, Louisiana, New
Jersey, and Georgia to resolve alieged air quality violations at three refineries owned or operated
by CITOO and related entities. Exh. 1; Exh. 4 at 1; Exh. 6 at 1; Tr. at 7, 20. The Consent
Decree was entered
on January 26, 2005, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District
of Texas, Case No. H-04-3883. Exh. 1 at 165; Tr. at 20; Pet. Br. at 2.
According to petitioners, under the Consent Decree, petitioners must reduce air emissions
at the Lemont Refinery, a process that will contribute additional levels
ofTDS to the facility's
treated wastewater. Tr. at 24; Exh. 4
at 1; Pet. Br. at 2. Petitioners maintain that, to comply with
the Consent Decree, they
must construct certain equipment and obtain air and water construction
and operating permits from the Agency. Exh. 4 at
1; Exh. 3 (construction permit drawings).
Petitioners state that they face significant stipulated penalties
if they fail t<;> comply with the
Consent Decree schedule. Tr. at.10,
21; Exh. 2 (schedule); Pet. Br. at 4. Harmon testified that
petitioners will be undertaking. a "major construction project extending approximately
20
months." Tr. at 20-21;
see also
PeL Br. at2;
Exh.:2.~
....
The Lemont Refinery discharges its treated wastewater to the S & S Canal. Exh. 4 at2.
m
December 2004, petitioners submitted to the Agency a construction permit application to
install new wastewater treatment
equipment-that application is still pending before the Agency.
Agency Rec. at
8; Exh. 5 (application for wastewater construction permit); Tr. at 21.:.22.
2 The Board cites the hearing transcript as "Tr. at _" and the hearing exhibits as "Exh. _ at _."
The variance petition was admitted as a hearing exhibit, and is cited as either "Pet. at
_" or "Exh.
4 at ."
3 The Board cites petitioners' brief as "Pet. Br. at _" and the Agency'sbriefas "AgencyBr. at
"
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
~-
5
According to Hannon, the Agency advised petitioners that it cannot issue a wastewater
construction permit because
of occasional water quality violations for TDS. Tr. at 22; Exh. 4 at
2; Exh. 5; Pet. Br. at 2, Exh.
B.
Specifically, Harmon testified that "two critical issues" raised by the Agency "pose
challenges for the consent decree schedule." Tr. at 22; Pet. Br. at 2. First, the Agency will not
grant the construction permit without also issuing a modified National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Second, because there has been an-exceedence
of the TDS
standard
in the past "in association with snow melt runoff, carrying road salt and similar
compounds into streams," the Agency could not issue an NPDES permit for this project unless
petitioners obtained a variance from the Board. Tr. at
22; Pet. Br. at 2-3. Hufflikewise testified
that "the Agency position that the addition ofthis wastewater stream would contribute to the
existing TDS violations that periodically occur due to salt runofffrom highway deicing activities
leads to this variance request." Tr. at 40.
Petitioners maintain that the variance is needed because, with increased TDS discharge,
there is a potential impact both
in the S
&
S Canal and downstream at the Interstate 55 (I-55)
Bridge over the Des Plaines River. Exh. 4 at 2; Tr. at 24. Petitioners state that their variance
petition was filed soon after the Consent Decree was lodged. Pet. Br. at 3.
The Lemont Rermery
The Lemont Refinery was built during
the period 1967 through 1970, and became
- operational in late fall 1969. Exh: 4 at 2. Approximately 25 different products are made at the
Lemont Refinery, including gasolines, turbine fuels, diesel fuels, furnace oils, petroleum coke
and various specialty napthas that can be manufactured into intermediate products such as
antifreeze, Dacron, detergent, industrial alcohols, plastics, and synthetic rubber.
Id.
Ninety
percent of the Lemont Refinery's output goes toward making gasolines, diesel fuels, home
heating oils, and turbine fuels for use throughout the Midwest.
Id.
Currently, the Lemont
Refinery produces 168,626 barrels daily on average and employs approximately 530 people.
Id.
The Lemont Refinery draws water from the S
&
S Canal, and discharges into the Canal
upstream ofthe Lockport Lock
&
Dam. Exh. 4 at 2, 5. According to petitioners, 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 constituting cooling tower
evaporation and steam losses.
Id.
at 2-3. The wastewater effluent contains dissolved solids
derived from crude oil compounds that are removed at the Refinery, as well as concentrating the
TDS present in the Canal intake water from the evaporation cooling.
Id.
at 3.
The Lemont Refinery operates under an NPDES permit (No. ILOOOI589), which was
_issued by the Agency and became effective September 1, 1994. Exh. 4 at 3; Exh 12 (existing
NPDES permit); Agency Rec. at
8. Petitioners timely submitted a renewal application for the
NPDES permit, so the permit continues in full force and effect during the Agency'sreview
ofthe
renewal application, which is still pending. Exh. 4 at 3; Agency Rec. at
8. The NPDES permit
includes Outfall 001 at rivet mile 296.5
on the S & S Canal (latitude 41 °38'58" and longitude
88°03'31"). The current NPDES permit does not have effluent limits on TDS.Exh. 4 at 3.
In
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
6
-J
August 2004, petitioners submitted to the Agency an application to modify their NPDES
permit-that application is also still under review by the Agency. Agency Rec. at 8; Exh. 11
(NPDES permit modification application).
The Lemont Refinery includes a physical/chemical and biological wastewater treatment
plant, which performs primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment on the generated wastewater
before it is discharged to the S & S Canal. Exh. 4 at 3-4. Besides the discharge that is the
subject
ofthis variance petition, no specific projects are currently being developed that would
increase the production rate
ofthe amount ofTDS discharged. Tr. at 22-23.
S & S
Canal and Des Plaines River
Below the Lockport Lock
&
Dani, the S
&
S Canal merges with the Des Plaines River,
passes through Joliet, and
11 miies downstream of Joliet passes beneath the I-55 Bridge.Exh. 4
at 5; Exh. 6 at 1. Upstream of the I-55 Bridge, the waters are designated as secondary contact
waters. Downstream of the I-55 Bridge, the Des Plaines River is a general use water. The
general use waters begin 18.5 miles downstream ofpetitioners' outfall. Tr. at 33; Exh. 4 at 5;
Exh.6 at 1.
According to Huff, from 1998 to 2005, petitioners weekly sampled for TDS in their water
intake from the S
&
S Canal, collected upstream of the Lemont Refinery'swastewater discharge.
Tr. at 33-34; Exh. 6 at 3; Exh. 9. From 1998 to 2002, the mean TDS ranged from a low of 541
,milligrams
per liter
(mgIL)
in 1998 to a highof629 mgIL in 2001. Huff testified that the
maximum TDS result (and the only exceedence of the 1,500 mgIL secondary contact IDS
standard from 1998 to 2005 recorded by petitioners at the water intake) was 1,636 mgIL on
March 8, 2002. Tr.at 34; Exh. 6, Table 1; Exh. 9.
The Metrolpolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC) also had
a weekly sampling program in 2001 and 2002. Tr. at 34; Exh. 6 at 3. The MWRDGC data is
contained in Huffs report entitled
Impact ofCITGO 's Proposed Discharge on Water Quality
(December 2004), which was entered into the record at hearing as Exhibit 6. Tr. at 34. At the
first MWRDGC sampling site downstream
of the Lemont Refmery, at Lockport, the average
TDS for January 2001 through July 2002 was 626 mglL-petitioners' average since 2001 was
599 mglL. Exh. 6 at 3, 8-9. At the I-55 Bridge; MWRDGC measured-a-mean TDS since 2001.,
of 705
mgIL. [d.
Huff testified that at the Lockport Lock & Dam, downstream ofthe LemontRefinery
outfall, the MWRDGC recorded one TDS exceedence (1,595 mglL),
on January 4, 200l,adding
that the Lemont Refinery recorded 1,408 mgIL TDS the next day. Tr. at 34. At the sampling
station at Jefferson Street
in Joliet, which is the next MWRDGC station downstream from the,
Lockport Lock & Dam, the MWRDGC recorded one TDS exceedence (1,535
mgIL),
on
February 24,2000.
[d.
Further downstream at the Empress casino, one TDS exceedence (1,867
mglL) was recorded, also on February24, 2000.
[d.
At the I-55 Bridge, where the general use
water quality standard begins, the 1,000 mglL TDS standard was exceeded
on March 16,2000
(1,902 mglL), on January 25,2001 (1,194
mgIL),
on February 1,2001 (1,075
mgIL),
and on
February
8, 2001 (1,139
mgIL).
[d.
at 34-35. The last three exceedences occurred over three
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
7
consecutive sampling events, which Huff testified implies that the "TDS excursion was
persistent for at least
15 days."
Id.
at 35.
According to Huff, there is a "strong correlation between the upstream TDS readings and
the downstream TDS readings," which "is to be expected as TDS is considered a 'conservative'
pollutant; that is, there is little or no reduction due to chemical or biological processes." Tr. at
36. Huff added that "the preponderance of flow at the 1-55Bridge originates from the Chicago
.area, so there [are] limited dilutional effects untilJurther downstream."
Id.
Hufftestified that a "review of all the TDS data (Exhibits 6 and 9) reveals that all of the
elevated TDS readings occur in the winter, and are attributable to snowmelt runoffcarrying Salt
runoff from highway deicing activities." Tr. at 35. Huffs report likewise concluded:
.. The source of the elevated TDS in the,waterway is from highway de-icing runoff.
TIle significant tons
ofro~d
saltthatis, applied in the drainage basin causes these
TDSexceedances, independent of other activities. Exh. 6 at 5.
Because of deicing and snow melt run-off, petitioners maintain that the TDS violations would
occur with
or without petitioners' current or future contribution ofTDS. Exh. 4 at 6, 8;Tr. at 8.
Wet
Gas Scrubber
Under the Consent Decree, petitioners will install a wet gas scrubber, along with .
substantial support equipment and controls, at the Lemont Refinery. The wet gas scrubber is
designed to reduce sulfur dioxide (S02) in air emissions from the carbon monoxide boiler on the
Fluid Catalytic Converter Unit (FCCD). Exh. 3; Exh. 4 at
5; Exh. 6 at 1; Tr. at 8, 20-21.
It
is
expected that by July 2006, construction of the wet gas scrubber will be complete and the
discharge will begin. Exh. 4 at 12.
Huff testified that the wet gas scrubber discharge ''willcontain significant sodium sulfate,
which essentially is the source
6fthe TDS subject to the variance request." Tr. at 33.
Specifically, the wet gas scrubber process generates water purge, which contains particulate and .
,S02. The pUrge stream will be removed from the wet gas scrubber to control TDS and Total
Suspepded Solids levels in the scrubber
w~ter.
Exh. 6 at 1; Tf. at 33. .
Purge water from the wet gas scrubber will then be treated to remove suspended solids
and
animonia, and cooled to 90°F. Effluent from the purge treatment unit will contain
approximately 94,000 mg/L TDS and will be discharged to the treated water basin ofthe Lemont
Refinery'swastewater treatment system and discharged through Outfan 001, along with the
existing process wastewater. Exh. 4 at 5; Exh. 6 at 1-2; Pet. Br., Exh. A at 2. The combined
outfall will have a projected TDS level
of 8,700 mg/L. Exh. 6 at 4.
The purge treatment unit'seffluent is expected to add 274,000 gallons per day average
flow to the Lemont Refinery'swastewater discharge, and 215,000 pounds per day ofTDS. Exh.
6 at 1; Tr. at 21,33,38-39;
see also
Exh. 5, 11. Huff estimated that low-flow stream conditions
(7-day, 10-year) in the S
& S Canal at the Lemont RefinerywQuld be 1,134 million gallons per,
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
8
day (MGD), and in the Des Plaines River at the I-55 Bridge would be 1,260 MGD. Tr. at 38-39;
Exh. 4 at
5; Exh. 6 at 3-4.
According to
Huffs estimate, the incremental increase at low flow in TDS levels from
the FCCU effluent would
be 23 mglL in the S
&
S Ca;nal and 21 mglL in the Des Plaines River
at the I-55 Bridge. Exh. 6 at
4. Using the existing water quality data described above and adding
this incremental amount, petitioners project the following TDS concentrations after mixing: 606
mgIL
in the S & S Canal and
726mgIL
in the Des Plaines River at the I-55 Bridge.
Id.
Huff
added that the maximum TDS reading of 1,902 mglL in the Des Plaines River is the equivalent
of 38,000,000 pounds per day ofTDS, and "the Lemont Refinery'scontribution would be on the
order
of 0.6 percent ofthe total loading:' Tr.at 36.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Petitioners seek a variance from TDS water quality standards at 35 TIL Adm. Code
302.208(g) and 302.407. Part 302 sets forth water quality standards applicable throughoutthe
State as designated in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.
See
35 TIL Adm. Code 302.101(a).
Subpart B
ofPart 302, which contains Section 302.208(g), sets forth general use water
quality standards that must be met in waters ofthe State for which there is no specific
designation.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.101(b);
see also
35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.201 ("general
use waters"). Section 302.208(g) provides a general use water quality standard for TDS
of 1,000
mgIL. Petitioners seek variance relief from this standard for the Des Plaines River. Section
302.208(g) reads in relevant part:
Section 302.208 Numeric Standards for Chemical Constituents
g)
Concentrations
of the following chemical constituents shall not be
exceeded except in waters for which mixing is allowed pursuant to Section
302.102.
Constituent
Unit
STORET Standard
Number
Total Dissolved
Solids
35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(g).
mgIL
70300
1000
Subpart D
ofPart 302, which contains Section 302.407, sets forth the secondary contact
and indigenous aquatic life water quality standards.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.201 (d). Section
302.407 provides a TDS standard
of 1,500 mglL. Petitioners seek variance relief from this
standard regarding the S
&
S Canal. The S
&
S Canal is designated amongHlinois' secondary
contact and indigenous aquatic life waters, as is the Des Plaines River "from its confluence with
the Chicago Sanitary and Shipping Canal to the Interstate
55 bridge."
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
9
303.441 (a), (i). The provision from which petitioners seek relief, Section 302.407, reads in
pertinent part:
Section 302.407 Chemical Constituents
Concentrations
of other chemical constituents shall not exceed the following
standards:
CONSTITUENTS
Total
Dissolved
Solids
35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.407.
STORET
NUMBER
70300
CONCENTRATION
(mg/L)
1500
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND AGENCY RECOMMENDATION
In
their petition, petitioners request a five-year variance from the TDS water quality
standards
of Sections 302.208(g) and 302.407. Pet. at 2, 13. Based on the petition, the Agency
originally recommended that the Board deny the requested variance for two primary reasons.
First,
the Agency believed that petitioners "had not adequately supported [their] contention that a
binding consent decree required the installation
of air pollution control equipment that prompted
the variance petition." Agency Br. at 2. Second, the Agency maintained that petitioners'
compliance plan set forth
in the petition was inadequate.
Id.
The Agency now believes that petitioners have addressed these two alleged deficiencies.
Agency Br. at 1-3. As for the Agency'sformer concern regarding the Consent Decree, the
Agency states that "[w]ith the introduction of the executed consent decree into the record ofthis
matter,CITGO has now resolved this deficiency."
Id.
at 2. As for the Agency'sformer concern
regarding the petition'scompliance plan, the Agency states that petitioners' Exhibit 7 consists
of
a "detailed compliance plan," which is the "product ofa series ofmeetings and negotiations
between CITGO representatives and Illinois
EPA staff."
Id.
at 2-3. This "new compliance plan
fully resolves the Illinois EPA's concerns." Agency Br. at 3; Tr. at 11-12. The Agency therefore
now recommends that the Board grant the requested variance. Agency Br. at 1, 3.
Petitioners' new compliance plan in Exhibit 7 reads as follows:
DATE
TASK
October 1, 2006
Identify a location near the I-55
Bridge for collecting water samples
and secure access.
November
1,2006
Retain a contractor to collect TDS
samples in the Des Plaines during
snow melt conditions.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
10
December 1, 2006
CITGO will collect TDS samples,
three times per week during the
winter months (December 1 to
March 30). During the defmed
sampling period, CITGO will
attempt to identify the relationship
between TDS levels at the discharge
versus TDS levels at the
I-55 bridge,
with the expectation that this
information will assist CITGO in
identifying the scope
of the period
that CITO would need to hold the
discharge.
April
1, 2008
End water quality testing.
May
1,2008
Sizethe required retention system
for the wet gas scrubber bleed for
the maximum number
of days the
TDS level at the I-55 Bridge remains
above 1,000 mgIL.
June 1,2008
Initiate design of the system to hold
the FCC wet gas scrubber bleed for
the maximum number
of days
required when the TDS exceeds
1,000mgIL
at the I-55 Bridge.
Decem1Jer 1, 2008
Submit a wastewater construction
permit application.
March
1, 2009
Begin construction as needed on
retention system for FCC wet gas
scrubber bleed stream system.
December
1, 2009
Place FCC wet gas scrubber bleed
stream system into operation, as
needed. Monitor the
Des
Plaines
River five days per week (excluding
weekends and holidays) during
the-
wintermonths (December 1 to
March 30).
December 15,2009
Achieve final compliance with 35
lAC 302.208(g) and 302.407.
Exh.7.
Petitioners state that this "negotiated compliance plan," which was "completed to the
satisfaction of IEPA," requires petitioners to collect TDS data from the Des Plaines River at the
I-55 Bridge during winter months. Pet. Br. at 3.. Hufftestified that the proposed TDS data
collection is "extensive." Tr. at 40. According to petitioners, this data "will provide information
that the Agency might not otherwise have the funding to undertake and could lead to better
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
11
understanding ofthe snowmelt phenomenon and perhaps yield ideas on how to reduce that
impact." Tr. at 12.
.
Harmon testified that after two seasons ofTDS testing, the Lemont Refinery "will be able
to size the required holding tank or basin for the wet gas scrubber discharge during periods of
high salinity." Tr. at 25,40-41; Pet. Br. at 3. According to Harmon, the retention system project
would begin by March 1,2009, and "would be completed by the winter season beginning
December 1,2009." Tr.at 25, 41; Pet. Br. at 3.
HARDSHIP
In considering a variance request, the Board is required by Section 35(a) of the Act to
determine whether the petitioner has presented adequate
proof that it would suffer an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship ifrequired to immediately comply with the Board'sregulation at issue.
See
415 ILCS 5/35(a) (2002).
Petitioners state that their variance request is necessitated by the Consent Decree, to
which the Agency is a party. Exh.
4at 9. USEPA lodged the Consent Decree, explains
petitioners, to "substantially reduce emissions of [S02], nitrogen oxides [NOx] and Particulate
Matter (PM]."
Id.
Petitioners will be investing over $120 million at the Lemont Refinery, "most
ofwhich costs are for the very wet gas scrubber which generates the TDS" at issue in the
variance request.
Id.
Petitioners state that they are subject to "substantial penalties" if they do
not meet the Consent Decree schedule. Pet. Br.
at 4.
The wet gas scrubber will increase the amount ofTDS in the Lemont Refinery'streated
wastewater. Pet. Hr. at 4; Exh. 6 at
1; Tr. at 21,33,38-39;
see also
Exh. 5, 11. Petitioners
maintairt that their contribution ofTDS would be "readily within the assimilative capacity of the
waterway," and that there is no TDS water quality violation "except in association with snow
melt conditions." Exh. 4 at 9.
Petitioners investigated methods to avoid releasing the FCCU wastewater into the
existing wastewater treatment system, including a managed release program with the use
of a
storm water basin
fOf retention; deep well disposal; and installation of evaporation wastewater
treatment technology. Petitioners maintain that uone ofthese alternatives is practical. Exh. 4 at
10, 12-13; Pet. Br. at 4. Petitioners also investigated "sewering the discharge
... to the
[MWRDGC]," but the MWRDGC informed petitioners that it "did not have the capacity to
handle the discharge." Tr. at 10. The Agency ultimately does not take issue with any
of
petitioners' conclusions regarding the viability of alternative technologies.
Further regarding the investigated alternatives, Harmon testified that the storm water
basin at the Lemont Refinery is used to collect site storm water runoff and drainage from
naturally existing waterways. Tr. at 25; Pet. Br. at 4. According to Harmon, because of
residential developments near the northwest facility boundary, there has been a marked increase
in
storm water volume in the site'sstorm water basin. Tr. at 25; Pet. Br. at 4. Runoff from the
developments feeds into naturally existing waterways that terminate within boundaries
of the
Lemont Refinery and ends up in the site'sstorm water basin. Tr. at 25; Pet. Br. at 4-5. Harmon
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
12
explained that a special condition in an Agency.:.issued "Groundwater Management Zone
Approval Letter" requires that the basin'swater level be maintained below 12'9". According to
Harmon, it has been difficult to comply with this condition because of the additional volume of
storm water runoff from the residential developments. Tr. at 26; Pet. Br. at 5. Under these
circumstances, retaining the wet gas scrubber effluent in the storm water basin during periods of
snowmelt and deicingis not viable, Harmon testified. Tr. at 26; Pet. Br. at 5. However,
strategies to divert the residential runoff before it crosses the Lemont Refinery border are being
pursued. Harmon testified that if such a diversion is implemented, the site's storm water basin
may
be able to retain wet gas scrubber effluent during snowmelt conditions. Tr. at 26.
Deep well disposal of the scrubber effluent, according to petitioners, is also not a viable
alternative because it would constitute a Class I injection well, which wells "are not permittable
in northeastern Illinois because no cap rock exists over the depth where disposal wells are
drilled." Pet. Br. at 5. Huff testified that "Class I wells require injection beneath a cap rock that.
will prevent migration upwards into higher aquifers" and northeastern Illinois "does not have a
cap
rock above the Mount Simon formation used for disposal wells throughout the Midwest."
Tr. at 39;
see also
Pet. Br. at
5; Exh. 4 at 10; Exh. 13.
Petitioners also state that technologies for removing sodium sulfate from a dilute aqueous
stream are limited: electrodialysis has not been applied
in the chemical or refinery industries on
this scale; biological sulfate reduction will not reduce the overallTDS concentration
by simply
replacing the sulfate ions with carbonate ions; andreverse osmosis concentration is
limited
because scaling problems would develop given the high concentration of sodium sulfate. Exh. 4
at 10; Pet. Br. at 5.
Petitioners maintain that the only. alternative technology potentially available would be
evaporation, which they describe as an energy intensive approach that would result in increased
carbon dioxide emissions. Pet. Hr. at 5-6.; Exh. 4 at 10-11, Attachment A; Tr. at 40. According
to petitioners, this alternative ''wouldresult in substantial adverse affects on the environment in
the form
of increased emissions to evaporate the wastewater." Exh.4 at 13. Additionally, in
2004 dollars, the capital cost for applying a falling film evaporator with mechanical vapor
recompression to this wastewater stream is approximately $7 million. Operating costs are
estimated
at $1 million per year, including depreciation.Exh. 4 at 11; Pet. Br. at 6; Exh. 14
(evaporation costs). Huff testified that Qver the years,..TDS variance "requests consistently have
found evaporation technology cost- and energy-prohibitive." Tr. at 40.
Petitioners are unaware
ofany such massive evaporation project being built or operated;
and conclude that requiring it here for the wet gas scrubber discharge would impose on them an
arbitrary and unreasonable hardship. This is especially so, according to petitioners, because:
installation is not practical, particularly in light
of the time schedule required by the Consent
Decree; petitioners are not the cause ofTDS exceedences; petitioners are investing substantial
funds to reduce air emissions; and the TDS discharge at issue is "relatively modest." Exh. 4 at
12; Tr. at 35-36; Pet. Br. at
6.
Huff testified that TDS effluent limits are not proposed as a condition.ofthe variance
because "it is clear that the TDS water quality violations are due solely to salt runoff from
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
-y
13
highway deicing activities." Tr. at 43. Huff added that "the Lemont Refmery will have no
control over the TDS concentrations, so the only possibility to control the pounds per day
discharged is by limiting the discharge rate."
ld.
at 45. Limiting the discharge rate would"
require the Refinery to hold treated effluent, and presumably cease all discharge if the Des
Plaines. River TDS is greater than 1,000 mg/L, according to Huff
ld.
Huff testified that today
there is no storage capacity at the Lemont Refinery to accomplish this:
[T]hese [TDS water quality] violations appear to occur over 15 consecutive days,
but less than 22 days. The Lemont Refmery will have to come up with in excess
of4,000,000 gallons of capacity to isolate the wet gas scrubber during these
periods of elevated TDS levels at the I-55 Bridge. Currently, this excess capacity
does not exist, and the actual number
of days that would require holding wet gas
scrubber water currently is poorly understood. The requested compliance time
frame is for the collection
ofthe necessary data to properly size this holding
,'basin/tankage.
ld.
at 45-46.
ENV1RONMENTALI~ACT
When deciding to grant or deny a variance petition, the Board is required to balance the
petitioner'shardship in complying with Board regulations against the iinpact that the requested
variance',willhave
on the environment. Monsanto Co. v. PCB, 67 Ill. 2d 276, 292, 367 N.E.2d
!'
684,691.(1977). Petitioner must establish that the hardship it would face from denial of its
variance request would outweigh any injury to the public or the environment from granting. the
relief, and
"[0]n1y if the hardship outweighs the injury does the evidence rise to the level of an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship." Marathon Oil. Co. v. EPA, 242 ill. App. 3d 200,206,610
N.E. 2d 789, 793 (5th Dist. 1993).
Petitioners state that there would be no cognizable benefit to the public
or the
environment in making them comply
with the existingTDS water quality standards. Pet. Br. at
7. Huff testified that because TDS is composed ofa variety of anions and cations, "there are no
'toxicity'valuesthat can
be applied to the generic TDS parameter." Tr. at 36. Petitioners
maintain that the Agency has been investigating whether having a TDS water quality standard is
necessary, and that the Agency
may soon propose eliminating TDS as a water quality parameter.
Exh. 4 at 9. According to Huff, the Agency believes at this point that the "technical data
supported elimination
of the TDS water quality standard." Tr. at 37; Pet. Br. at 7; Exh.lO. :
Petitioners state, and the Agency does riot dispute, that neither the S
&
S Canal nor the
downstream Des Plaines River has been listed
by the Agency as.impaired for TDS. Exh. 4 at 7,
10. Huff testified that "sodium sulfate, at the proposed levels discharged, will not impact the
aquatic community in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal or in the Des Plaines River'" andthat
there is "no adverse effect on aquatic life due to TDS and sulfate levels." Tr. at 37'-38.
Petitioners niaintain that there would be no "significant injury to the public or the environment"
from the requested variance. Pet. Br. at 7; Tr. at 37-38.
, On the other hand, according to petitioners, their over-$120 million investment in the
Lemont Refinery under the Consent Decree is projected to "reduce S02 emissions by 15,300
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
14
tons/year,
NOx
emissions
by 1,100 tons/year, and PM emissions by 80 tons/year." Exh. 4 at 9;
see also
Exh. 1; Tr. at 20.
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW
Under Section 35 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/35 (2002)), the Board may grant a variance
only to the extent that doing so is consistent with applicable provisions
of federal law.
In
its
original recommendation,
the Agency stated that ifpetitioners filed with the Board the
information shared informally with the Agency, then "granting the requested variance would not
be inconsistent with the Clean Water Act
or any other federal standard." Agency Rec. at 7.
In
its post-hearing brief recommending that the Board grant the requested variance, the Agency
states
that petitioners, at hearing, "offered all the documents and testimony it had previously
discussed informally with the lllinois EPA." Agency Br. at
2.
BOARD FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
The Board has balanced the hardship petitioners would face in immediately complying
with the TDS water quality standards against the impact that granting the requested variance
would have on the public and the environment, all as described in detail above. Based on this
record, and considering the conditions to which the variance would be subject, the Board finds
that petitioners have established that the hardship they would experience outweighs any injury to
the public
or the environment from granting the relief The Board finds that petitioners have
presented adequate
proofthat they would suffer an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship ifrequired
to
comply'immediatelywith the Board regulations at issue. The Board further finds that the
requested variance is not inconsistent with federal law.
As provided in Section36(a)
ofthe Act (415 ILCS5/36(a) (2002)), "[i]ngranting a
variance the Board may. impose
such conditions as the policies of this Act mayrequire." With
minor clarifying language changes, the Board will impose as conditions on the variance those
conditions agreed to
by petitioners and the Agency and set forth as petitioners' compliance plan
in Exhibit 7.. The Board will impose additional conditions, however, specifically regarding
sampling the wastewater effluent for TDS and reporting TDS sampling results. After discussing.
those new additional conditions, the Board will discuss when the variance tenninates.
Effluent
The Board will require petitioners to monitor the effluent of Outfall 001 for TDS as a
condition
ofthe variance.
See
Condition 4. The Board finds this condition necessary given that
petitioners have agreed to attempt to identify any relationship between TDS levels in the effluent
of Outfall 001 and TDS levels in the Des Plaines River at the I-55 Bridge.
See
Condition 5. This
data
may also help to verify that the incremental TDS impacts from the Lemont Refinery will be
as petitioners estimated. Further, the information
may aid petitioners in identifying the time
period that
may be needed to hold the FCCU wet gas scrubber bleed.
See
Condition 5.
The Board will require this TDS effluent sampling twice per week, which is consistent
with petitioners' current NPDES permit sampling protocol for other parameters.
See
Exh. 12.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
15
-,-,
.. _1
Also, to be in accordance with the agreed-upon winter time frame for TDS sampling in the Des '
Plaines River at the I-55 Bridge, the Board will require the TDS effluent sampling only during
the winter months,
i. e.,
December through March.
See
Condition 3.
Reporting
Section 36(b) of the Act provides that if the Board grants a variance, the Board must do
so "upon the condition that the person who receives such variance shall make such periodic
progress reports asthe Board shall specify." 415 ILCS 5/36(b) (2002). Accordingly, as a
condition of the variance, the Board will require petitioners to submit their in-stream and effluent
TDS sampling results to the Agency on a monthly basis.
See
Conditions 3 and 4.
Duration
The record appears to contain conflicting statements on the duration ofvariance relief
that petitioners seek. The petition itself, filed in November 2004, requests a "Variance for a
period
of5 years from the date of granting this Variance on the conditions proposed herein."
Pet. at 13. The subsequently-filed compliance plan, however, requires petitioners to "[a]chieve
final compliance with 35 IAC 302.208(g) and 302.407"
by December 15,2009. Exh. 7. As the
Board is tod.ay, April 21, 2005, granting the variance, the difference in duration would be
roughly four:months. Those four months could be significant because they are winter months,
i.e.,
the deicing and snow-melt runoff season.
For several reasons, the Board uses the earlier date
(i.e.,
December 15,2009) for
expiration
ofthe variance relief. First, the compliance plan was prepared
after
the petition.
Second, at hearing, the parties agreed on the record to the conditions set forth in the compliance
plan. Third,'petitionersdo not repeat in their post-hearing
briefa request for a "5-year variance."
Fourth, the compliance plan provides not merely a time frame, but a date-certain, December 15,
2009.
Most importantly, under the compliance plan agreed to
by petitioners and the Agency,
petitioners have committed to begin operating, as necessary, the FCCD wet gas scrubber bleed
retention system on December 1,2009. As proposed,
ifthe Des Plaines River is experiencing
TDS exceedences at the I-55 Bridge, the retention system would hold the FCCD wet gas
scrubber bleed,
i.e.,
the effluent expected to elevate TDS levels in Outfall 001.
In
other words,
once the retention system is operational, the primary reason proffered
by petitioners for needing
the variance is eliminated. As Huff testified: ''Therequested compliance time frame is for the
collection
ofthe necessary data to properly size this holding basin/tankage." Tr. at 45-46.
Moreover, under the compliance plan, petitioners have committed to be in compliance by
December 15,2009, with the TDS water quality standards from which they seek relief.
It
is
unclear on this record why then, after that date, petitioners would be entitled to relief from those
very standards.
The Board notes that, as provided in the compliance plan, the Board is requiring
petitioners to monitor TDS in the Des Plaines River during the 2009 and 2010 winter season.
This will therefore include sampling
after
the variance relief from the TDS water quality
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
-.-/
16
"
'
standards has expired. This is simply a condition ofthe variance relief, and is in no way
inconsistent with petitioners avoiding being subject
to the general rules from April 21, 2005
through December
15, 2009.
If the Board'sdecision on the expiration of the variance reliefdoes not effectuate the
intent
of the parties, or if any condition imposed by the Board is objectionable, petitioners may
decline to execute the certificate
of acceptance set forth below, and either or both parties may file
a motion
to reconsider.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.520, 101.902, 104.240, 104.248.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that if this petition for a variance from the TDS general use and
secondary contact water quality standards (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(g) and 302.407) is
not
granted, petitioners will incur an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship. The Board finds that
issuance
ofthe variance is not inconsistent with federa11aw and will not significantly impact
public health or the environment. Therefore, the Board grants the requested variance to
petitioners, subject to the conditions set forth
in this order. The variance reliefbegins today and
runs through December 15,2009.
This opinion constitutes the Board'sfindings
of fact and conclusions of law.
ORDER
The Board grants CITGO and PDVMR a variance from the TDS water quality standards
of35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(g) and 302.407, subject to the following conditions:
1.
The duration ofthe variance relief from the identified TDSwater quality
standards is from April 21, 2005 through December 15, 2009.
2.
This variance applies only to petitioners' Lemont Refinery at 135th Street and
New Avenue in Lemont, Will County, regarding elevated TDS levels in the
effluent
of Outfall 001 due to operation of the wet gas scrubber under the Consent
Decree entered January 26,2005, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District
of Texas, Case No. H-04-3883.
3.
By October 1,2006, petitioners must identify a location near the I-55 Bridge for
collecting water samples from the Des Plaines River and secure access for the
sampling. By November
1, 2006, petitioners must retain a contractor to collect
TDS samples at that location. From December
1,2006 through March 30, 2008,
petitioners must collect TDS samples from the Des Plaines River three times per
week during the winter months (December 1
to March 30). Petitioners must
submit the TDS sample results monthly to the Agency.
4.
From December
1, 2006 through March 30, 2008, the effluent of Outfall 001 must
be monitored for TDS two times per week during the winter months (December 1
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
17
to March 30). Petitioners must submit the TDS sample results monthly to the
Agency.
5.
Petitioners must diligently attempt to identify any relationship between TDS
levels in the effluent
of Outfall 001 and TDS levels in the Des Plaines River at the
I-55 Bridge. Petitioners must use any resulting relevant information
to identify
the time period that may be needed
to hold the FCCU wet gas scrubber bleed.
6.
By May 1,2008, petitioners must begin to size the system needed to retain the
FCCU wet gas scrubber bleed for the maximum number
of days that the TDS
level in the Des Plaines River at the I-55 Bridge exceeds 1,000mg/L.
7.
By June 1,2008, petitioners must begin to design the system needed to retain the
FCCU wet gas scrubber bleed for the maximum number
of days that the TDS
level
in the'Des Plaines River at the 1"-55 Bridge exceeds 1,000 mg/L.
8.
By December 1, 2008,petitionersmllst sublllit to the Agency a wastewater
construction permit application for the FCCU wet gas scrubber bleed retention
system.
9.
By March 1,2009, petitioners must begin construction as needed on the FCCU
wet gas scrubber bleed retention system.
10.
By December 1,2009, petitioners must operate the FCCU wet gas scrubber bleed
retention system as needed. From December 1,2009 through March 30, 2010,
petitioner~
must collect TDS samples from the Des Plaines River at the I-55
Bridge five days per week (excluding weekends and holidays). Petitioners must
submit the TDS sample results monthly to the Agency.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
Ifpetitioners choose to accept this variance, they must, within 45 days after the date of
: this opinion and order, file with the Board and serve on the Agency a certificate of acceptance
, and agreement to be bound by all the terms and conditions of the granted variance. "A variance
and its conditions are not binding upon the petitioner until the executed certificate is filed with
the Board and served on the Agency. Failure
to timely file the executed certifi'catewith the
, Board and serve the Agency renders the variance void." 35 TIL Adm. Code 104.240. The form
ofthe certificate follows:
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
18
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
I (We);
, having read the opinion
arid
order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in docket PCB 05-85, dated April 21, 2005,
understand and accept the opinion and order, realizing that this acceptance renders all tenns and
conditions of the variance set forth in that order binding and enforceable.
Petitioner CITGO PETROLEUM
CORPORATION
Petitioner PDV MIDWEST REFINING,
L.L.C.
Authorized Agent
By:
------~:---------
Authorized Agent
By:
-'--
_
Title:
--------------
Title:
-------------
Date:
-------------
Section 41 (a) of the Environmental Protection Act provides that final Board orders may
be appealed directly to the lllinois Appellate Court within 35 days after the Board serves the
order.
415ILCS5/41(a) (2002); see also 35 lll. Adm. Code 101.300(d)(2), 101.906, 102.706.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 establishes filing requirements that apply when the lllinois
Appellate Court,
by statute, directly reviews administrative orders. 172 lll. 2d R. 335. The
Board'sprocedural rules provide that motions for the Board to reconsider or modify its final
orders
may be filed with the Board within 35 days after the order is received. 35 TIL Adm. Code
101.520; see also
35lll. Adm. Code 101;902,102.700,102.702.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
adopted the above opinion and order
on April 21, 2005, by a vote of 5-0.
~A~"/
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
Exhibit
B
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
-,-,
•
' . '
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
,
" 1021
NORTH GRAND AVENUE EAST,
P.O. Box 19276,
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS
62794-9276 - ( 217) 782-3397
.-'
JAMJ$
R.
THOMPSON CENTER,
100
WE~
RANDOLPH, SUITE
11-300,
CHICAGO,
IL 60601 - (312) 814-6026
2171782:.oc>1O
ROD R. BlAGOJEVICH, GOVERNOR
DOUGLAS
P. Scon,
DIRECTOR
JUN 2 2 2007
CITGO Petrolewn Corporation
13Sth and New Avenue
Lemont, Illinois 60439
Re:
CrrGO Petrolewn Corporation
CITGO Petroleum Corporation
~
Lemont Refmery
NPDES Permit
No.lliJ001589
Modification ofNPDES Permit (After Public Notice)
Gentlemen:
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the request for modification ofthe .
above-referenced NPDES Permit and issued a public notice based on that request. The final decision of
the Agency is to modifY the Permitas follows:
Internal outfall AD1 has been added for the discharge of scrubber wastewater. 1bis outfall will be
regulated for temperature and hexavalent chromium. Outfall AOI will be subject to the general use
temperature limitations, while outfall
00twill betegWated by the secondary contact temperature
limitations. Special Conditions
17 and 19 have been changed and Special Condition 20 has been added.
Enclosed is a copy
of the modified Permit. You have the right to appeal this modification to the Illinois
Pollution Control Board within
a 35 day period following the modification date shown on the first page of
the permit.
Should you have any question
or comments regarding the above, please contact Darin LeCrone ofmy
staff.
Sincerely,
Manager, Permit Section
Division
of Water Pollution Control
SAK:DEL:OSI2140I.bah
Attachment: Modified Permit
.~
cc:
Records Unit
Compliance Assurance Section
Des Plaines Region
NIPC
US EPA
RECEIVED
JUN 25 2007
ROCKFORD-4302
ELGIN
North-
595
MainSouthStreet,State, Rockford,Il61103
Elgin,
IL
60123 - (847)-
(815)987-7760608-3131
•
PEORIA
•
DES
-
PlAINES-95115415
N. University
W. HarrisonSt.,
Peoria;St.,Des
It 61614
PlaP~16
- (309) 693-5463
~~~OO
BUREAU OF lAND - PEORIA - 7620 N, University St., Peoria, IL 61614 -. (309) 693-5462 •
CHAMPAIGN - 2125 South First Street, Champaign, Jl 61820 - (217) 278-5800
SPRINGFIELD - 4500 S. Sixth Street Rd., Springfield,
IL
62706 - (217) 786-6892
•
COIJjNSVlLLE - 2009 Mall Street, Collinsville,
IL
62234 - (618)346-5120
MARlON - 23'09 W. Main St.,
Suite
116, Marlon, Il 62959 - (618) 993-7200
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
/.~
-~'\,
'~
NPDES Permit No. IL0001589
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division
of Water Pollution Control
1021 North Grand
Avenue East
Post Office Box 19276
'Springfield, illinois 62794-9276
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
Modified (NPDES) Permit
Expiration Date: July 31, 2011
Name
and Address of Permittee:
CITGO Petroleum
CQrporation
135th and New Avenue
Lemont, Illinois 60439
Discharge Number and Name:
001 Treated Refinery Wastewater
A01
FCCU Wet Gas Scrubber Wastewater
002 Stormwater Basin Overflow
.003 Stormwater
004 Stormwater
005 Stormwater
006 Stormwater
007 Intake Screen Backwash
008 Stormwater
Issue Date: July 28, 2006
Effective Date: August 1, 2006
Modification Date: June
22. 2007
Facility Name and Address:
CITGO Petroleum Corporation -
lemont Refinery
135th and
New Avenue
Lemont, Illinois 60439
(Will County)
Receiving Waters:
,Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal
Illinois and Michigan Canal
Illinois and Michigan Canal
illinois and Michigan Canal
Illinois and Michigan Canal
illinois and Michigan Canal
Chicago Sanitary and Ship
CanaJ
illinois and Michigan Canal
In compliance with the provisions
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, Title 35 of III. Adm. Code, Subtitle C and/or Subtitle D,
Chapter 1, and the Clean Water Act (CWA), the above-named permittee
is hereby authorized to discharge at the above location to the
above-named receiving stream
In accordance with the standard conditions and attachments herein.
Permittee
is not authorized to discharge after the above expiration date. In order to receive authorization to discharge beyond the
expiration date, the permittee shall submit the proper application
as required by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)
not later than 180 days prior to the expiration date.
Alan
~~
Keller,P.E.
Manager. Permit Section
Division
of Water Pollution Control
SAK:DEL:05121401.bah
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
/"".
~
NPDES Permit No. Il0001589
Effluent Limitatjons and MonitOring
1.
From the modification date of this permit until the expiration date, the effluehtof the following discharge(s) shall
be
monitored and
limited
at all times as follows:
Outfall(s): 001 - Treated Refinery Wastewater: 5.79 MGD OAF
LOAD LIMITS Ibs/day
OAF (DMF)
CONCENTRATION
LIMITS moll
PARAMETER
Contributory Waste
Streams:
30 DAY
AVERAGE
DAilY
MAXIMUM
30 DAY
AVERAGE
DAILY
MAXIMUM
SAMPLE
FREQUENCY
SAMPLE
TYPE
1)
2)
3)
4)
Process Wastewater
Cooling Tower Blowdown
Non-Process Wastewater,
Stormwater, Utility Water, Boiler Blowdown
Sanitary Waste Water
5)
Hydrostatic
Test Water
6)
Chemical Cleaning
7)
.Seneca, Chicago Carbon, BOC Process Water
8)
Scrubber Wastewater
Flow (MGD)
See Special Condition 1
pH
See Special Condition 2
800
6
1008.80
2472.32
CBOD
6
all and Grease
536.40
1005.75
Total Suspended Solids
1475.10
2313.23
Phenols
10.28
42.37
AmmoniaasN
1005.75
2212.65
COO
12873.60
24808.50
Chromium (Total)
11.99
34.51
Chromium (Hexavalent)*
0.99
2.20
Sulfide
9.72
21.79
Cyanide
5.04
14.41
Fluoride
756.60
2161.70
Sulfate
Total Dissolved Solids
Temperature
See Special Condition 17
Total Residual Chlorine
See
Special Condition 19
* See Special Condition
20
20
15
25
0.3
9.4
0.1
0.1
15
Daily
Continuous
2!Week
Grab
2N1eek
Composite
40
2IWeek
Composite
20
2IWeek
Mathematical
Composite
50
2IWeek
Composite
0.4
2/Week
Composite
26.0
2IWeek
Composite
2/Week
Composite
1.0
2/Week
Composite
0.3
1/Month
Grab
2fWeek
Composite
0.2
2!Week
Composite
28.6
2/Week
Composite
Mon!torOnly
2.N'.foek
C3mpooftl1J
Monitor Only
2IWeek
Composite
Continuous
Measure
0.05
1IDay
Grab
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
/----..,.
NPDES Permit No.IL0001589
1.
From the modification date of this permit until the expiration date, the effluent of the following discharge(s} shall be monitored and limited
at
all times as follows:
Outfall(s}:
A01 - FCCU Wet Gas Scrubbe"r Wastewater: 0.375 MGD
LOAD LIMITS Ills/day
DAE<PMEl
CONCENTRATION
lIMITSmgn
PARAMETER
Flow (MGD)
Temperature*
Chromium (Hexavalent)
....
*SeeSpecial Condition 17
** See Special Condition 20
30 DAY
AVERAGE
DAILY
MAXIMUM
30 DAY
AVERAGE
0.1
DAILY
MAXIMUM
0.3
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
FREQUENCY
TYPE
Estimate When
MonItoring
Continuous
Measure
1/Month
Grab
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
/,---
-,-;
NPDES Permit No. IL0001589
Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
1. From the modification date ofthis permit until the expiration elate. the effluent of the following discharye(s) shall be monitored and limited
at all times as follows:
Outfall(s):
002 -
Stormwater Basin Overflow: Intermittent
LOAD LIMITS Ibs/day
DAFCDMF)
CONCENTRATION
LIMITS
mqI!
PARAMETER
30
DAY
AVERAGE
DAILY
MAXIMUM
30 DAY
AVERAGE
DAILY
MAXIMUM
SAMPLE
FREQUENCY
SAMPLE
TYPE
Contributory Waste Streams:
1) Refinery Stormwater
2) Treated Process Water (Fire Water)
3)
Utility Water
4)
Boiler
BloWdown
5) Tank Farm Stornlwater
6) Hydrostatic Test Water
7)
Biomass
8)
Off Site Stormwater Runoff
9)
Exxon Mobil Terminal Stormwater
10) Chicago Carbon Storrnwater
11) Kinder Morgan Stormwater
12) BOC Stormwater
13) Seneca Stormwater
Flow (MGD)
See Special Condition 1
Estimate When
Monitoring
pH
See Special Condition 2
1/Day
Grab
B00
5
20
40
1/0ay
Grab
Total Suspended Solids
25
50
1/Day
Grab
Oil and Grease
15
30
1/Day
Grab
Phenols
0.3
0.6
1/Day
Grab
Chromium (Total)
1.0
1/Day
Grab
Chromium (Hexavalent)
0.1
0.3
1/Day
Grab
Cyanide
0.1
0.2
1/Day
Grab
Fluoride
15
28.6
1/Day
Grab
Ammonia
as N
9.4
26.0
1/Day
Grab
COD
Monitor
lIDay
Grab
Sulfide
Monitor
1/Day
Grab
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
....,
w.
NPDES Permit No.IL0001589
Efflyent Limitations
and Monitoring
...
1: From the modification date ofthls permit until the expiration date, the
effluent
of the following dlscharge(s) shall be monitored arid
limited
at
all times as follows:
Outfall(s): 007 - Intake Screen Backwash: 0.027
MGD
DAF
LOAD LIMITS Ibs/day
DAF lDMF)
CONCENTRATION
LIMITS rng/I
PARAMETER
30 DAY
AVERAGE
DAILY
MAXIMUM
30 DAY
AVERAGE
DAILY
MAXIMUM
SAMPLE
FREQUENCY
SAMPLE
TYPE
F~w(MGD)
Total Residual Chlorine
See Special Condition 1
0.05
1/Week
1/Week*
Estimate
Grab
. "'Sample frequency shall be 1/Week when chlorinating.
Outfalls:
003, 004, 005,006, and 008 - Stormwater Runoff: Intermittent
See Special
Condit/on 10
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
Page 6
NPDES Permit No. IL0001589
Special Conditions
-,-,
Modification Date: June
22, 2007
SPECIAL CONDITION
1.
Flo'oV(in Million Gallons per Day) shall be reported as a monthly average and a daily maximum on the DMR form.
SPECIAL CONDITION
2.
The pH shall be in the range
6.0 to 9.0.
The monthly minimum andmonthly maximum values shall
be
reported
on the
DMR fonn.
SPECIALCONDmON
3. Samples taken in compliance withthe effluent monitoring requirements shall be taken at a point representative
of the discharge, but prior to, entry Into thereceiving stream.
'
SPECIAL CONDITION 4. If an applicable effluent standard or limitation is promulgated under Sections 301 (b)(2)(C) and
(D),
304(b)(2),
and 307(a)(2) ofthe Clean Water Actandthat effluent standard or limitation is more
~trjngent
than any effluent limitation In the permit or
contri:llsapollut<:lntnot limited in the NPDES Petmlt,the AgencyshaJl revise
ormodifythe~rmit
iti
accordancewith the moresbingent
standardorprohibitiol'l alldshaU so notifythe pi:}rmittee.
SPECIAL CONDITION 5. This permit may be modified to include different final effluent limitations or requireinentswhlch are consistent
with applicable laws, regulations, or judicial orders. The Agency will public notice the permit modification.
SPECIAL
CONDITION 6. Mathematical composites for 011, fats and greases shaUconsist of aserles of grab samples collected over any
24-hour consecutive period. Each sample shall be analyzed separatElIyand tttearitlirrietic mean of all grab samples collected during a '
24-hour period shall constiMe a mathematical composite. No single grab sample shall excaedaconcentration 0175 mglJ.
SPECIAL CONDITION 7. For tha purpose of this permit discharges from outfalls 003, 004, 005, 006, and008 are limited to stormwater,
free from process and other wastewater discharges.
SPECIAL
CONDITIONB...StormwaterdischargesIdentified as outfalls 003, 004, 005, 006,alld 008 maybereroutedtothefacility's WWfP
and discharged via outfall 001, subject to the limitations of tIils permit If these stormwater discharges are routed
f()
theWWTP then they
shall no longer
be subject to the
requir~ments
of Special Condition 10, but Instead shall meet the requirements ot'Special Condition 9. ,
SPECIAL CONDITION 9. (Outfalls 001 and 002) The Agency has. determined that tIie eflluentlimitations In this permit constitute BAT/BCT
tor
stann water which is treated.In t1ie existing treatment facilities for purposes of this pennit relssuance, and no pollution prevention plan
wlil
be
required for such storm water. In additionto t1ie chemical specific monitoring requiredelsewhere in this pel111it,tIie
permitt~
shall
conduct anarinual inspection
ofthe
facility site to Identify areas conbibuting to a storm water disCharge aSsociated with industrial activity,
,and detennine whether any facility modifications have occurred whichresuit In previously-treated storm wateqlischarges no longer
receiving treatment. Ifany such discharges are identified the pennlttee shall request amodification of this permit within 30 days after the
inspection. Records of the annual inspection shall be retained by the pennittee for the term ofthis permit and be made.available to the
Agency on request.
SPECIAL
CONDITION 10.
SToRMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPPl
A.
A storm water pollution preventionplan shall be developed by the permittee for the storm water associated with industrial activity at
this facility. The plan.shailidentifypotential sources ofpblJution Which l1l8y bEl. Elxp9Cled to affect thequality.ofsform water discharges
associated with the Industrial activity
at the facility. In addition, the plan shall describe and ensure
th~imprEll1lentatiori
of practices
which are
to be
used
to reduce the pollutants in storm water discharges associated with Industrial activity at the facility and to assure
compliance
with the terms and conditions ofthis permit.
B. The plan shall be completed within 180 days ofthe effective date 61thls permit. Plans shall provide for compliance with the terms
of the plan within 365
days oftha effective date of thIs permit .. The O'Nlleror operator ofthe facility shall make a copy of the plan
available to the Agency
at
any reasonable time upon reque8t. [Note: Ifthe plan has already been developed and Implemented it shall
be maintained in accordance with all requirements of this special condition.]
C. The permittee may be notified by the Agency at any time that the plan does not meet the requirements of this condition. After such
notification, the permittee shall make changes to the plan and shall submit a written certification that the requested changes have
been
made. Unless otherwise provided, t1ie permittee shall have 30 days after such notification to make t1ie changEls.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
Page?
NPDES Permit No. ILOOO1589
Special Conditions
Modification Date: June
22, 2007
D.
The dischargershall amend the plan whenever there .is a
changeinconstruction,oper~tion,ormalntenanceWhichrnI:iY
affect the
discharge
of significant quantities of pollutalltsto the waters of the State.or ifa.facillty Inspection required by paragraph G of this
condition indicates that anamendment is
neEJded. The plan should also be
amEJrld~.lf
the
dischargeris in v/olationof.anycondltlons
of thIS pennit, or has not achieved the
general
objective of controlling pollutants
In<storm
water discharges.. Amsndmellts to the plan
shall be made within the shortest reasonable period
of time, and shall be provided to the Agency for review upon request.
E.
The plan shall
provide a description
ofpote~tlalsources
wl1ihh may be
exp~etfxlto
addslgnificcJntquantitiesofpoUutantsto storm
water discharges, or which may result In non-storm water discharges from stonn water outfalls at the facility. The plan shall include,
at a minimum, the following items:
1.
A topographic
map extending
one-q~artermilebeyond
the property boundaries ofthe facllity, showing: the facility, surface water
bodies,
wells (Including injection wells), seepage pits, Infiltration ponds, and thedil';(;harge
polntswherethefaciJity's~tOi'm
water
discharges to 8 municipal storm drain system or other water body. The requirElrTwl1ts dlthis paragraph
may
be InCludedon the
site map if appropriate.
.
2.
A site map sliowing:
I.
The stOml water conveyance and discharge structures;
II.
An outline of the storm water draillage areas for each stonn water discharge point;
IIi.
Paved
areas and bUildings;
Iv.
Areas used
for outdoor manufacturing, <storage, or disposal of significant materials, including activities that generate
significant qiJantitiesofdlJst or particulates.
V.
Location of existillQstorm waterstructlucilcoflfroll11easures(dikes, coverings, detentionfacilitles, etc.);
Vi.
Surface water locationsandlorml.mlcipalstorrndrain locations
Vii.
Areas ofexisting and potential soU erosion;
Viii. Vehicleserviceareas;.
Ix. - Material loadIng, unloading, and access areas.
3.
A narrative description of the following:
I.
The nature of
the
Industrial activities conducted at the site, inclUding adescrlptlon of significant materials that are treated,
stored
or disposed of In a manner to allow exposure to storm water;
II.
Materials,equ/pment,
and
vehic:lell1anagement
p~C9S
elllploYed torrl1nlm;2:e contact of s1grilficantmaterials with storm
waterdischarges;
.. . .
Iii.
Existing structural and nonwstructural Cdntrolmeasul'lls to redl.lCElpollLitants in storm Water discharges;
Iv.
Industrial storm water discharge treatment facilities;
..--,
-"
-_.
V.
Methods of onsite storage .and disposal of significant materials;
4.
A list of
the
types ofpollutants that have a reasonable potential
to be
present In stOrmwaler discharges In significant quantities.
5;
An
estimate altha size of the facility!n aCr&sor square feet, and the percent of the facjlity tl1athas Impervious areas $Uch as
pavementor.bulldlngs.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
Page 8
,/ -''''.
i,
J
NPDES Permit No. IL0001589
Special
Condltio!1s
Modification Date: June
22, 2007
6.
A summary of
~xistlng
sampling data describing pollutants in storm water discharges.
F. The plan shall describe the storm water management controls which will
be
Implemented by the facility. The appropriate controls shall
reflect
identified existing and potential sources of pollutants at the facility. The description of the storm water management controls
shall Include:
1.
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Personnel-Identification by Job titles of the Individuals who are responsible for developing,
implementing,
and revising the plan.
..
2.
Preventive Maintenance - Procedures for inspection and maintenance of storm water conveyance system deVices such as
oillwater-separators, catch basins, etc., and inspection and testing of plantequlpmentand systems .that could fall and result In
discharges of pollutants to Stonn water.
..
3.
Good Housekeeping - Good housekeeping requires the maintenance of clean, orderlyfacility areas that discharge storm water.
Materiar handling areas shall be Inspectedand cleaned to reduce the potential for pollutants tdenter the storm water conveyance
system.
4. Spill Prevention and Response - Identification of areaswhereslgnlflcant materials can spill Into or otherwise enter the storm
water conveyance
systems and their accoOlpanying drainage
polnts.~p~Clficmaterial h~ndling
procedures, storage
reqUirements, spill clean up equipment and procedures should be Identified, as appropriate. Intamal notification procedures for
spills
of significant materials should be established.
5.
Storm Water Manage.ment Practices - Storm water managemel1t practic:esare practices other than those whichcontr()1 the
source ofpollutants. They Include measuressuch as Installing oiland gritseparators. diverting storrnwater into retention basins,
etc. Based on assessment of the potential of various sOurces to contribllte pollutants, measures to remove pollutants from storm
water discharge shall be implemented. In developing the plan, the following management practices shall be considered:
I.
Containment - Storage within berms or other $econdary containmentdevices to prevent leaks and spills from el'1tering
storm water runoff;
Ii.
Oil & Grease Separation - OiVwater separators, booms, skimmers or other methods to minimize
011
contaminated storm
water
disch~rges;
Iii.
Debris & Sediment Control. Screens, booms, sediment ponds or other methods to reduce debris and sediment In storm
wat(lr discharges;
Iv.
Waste Chemical Disposal- Waste ChemiCals sllch
~s
antifreeze, degreasers and uSed oils shallberecycled or disposed
ofin an approved manner and In a way whIch prevents them from entering storm watetdischarges.
V.
Storm Water Diversion - Storm water diversion away from materials manufacturing, storage and other areas of potential
stormwatel"contamination;
Vi.
CovElredStorage
or
Manufacturing Areas -Covered fueUngoperations,materials manufacturing and storage areas to
prevent .contact.with. storm water.
.
6.
Sediment and Erosion Prevention -
The
plan shall identify areas which due to topOgraphy, actlvitlEls; or btherfactors. have
a
hIgh
potential for significant soli erosion and describe measures tOUmlterosion.
7.
Employee.Training..... Employeelraining P!'()graOlsshall.• infoOllpersonnei at all. leVels
.0fresp6nsibility·ofthe.components~nd
goals ofthestorrn waterpolliition control plan. Training should address topics such as spill response, good housekeeping and
material management practices.
The plan shall identify periodic dates for such training.
8.
Inspection Procedures - Qualified plant personnel shall
be
identified to inspect designated equipment and plant areas. A tracking
or follow-up procedure shall be used to ensure appropriate response
has
been taken In response to an Inspection. Inspections
and maintenance activities shall
be
documented and recorded.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
Page. 9
NPDES Pennit No.
ILOOO1589
Special Conditions
Modification Date: June
22, 2007
G. The permittee. shall conduct an annual facility Inspection to verify thatall13Il3Ill13nts of the plan, including the site map, potential
pollutant
souroes, and structural and non-structural controls to reducepolluUintsillindu$trlalstonn Water discharges are accurate.
Observationsthatrequir~a
response and fheappropriateresponse
to
t/leobsetvatiohshanbtfretairiedas part
of
the plan. ReqOrds
documenting significant observations made during the site Inspection shall be submitted to the Agency In accordance with the
reporting requirements
of this permit.
H. This plan should briefly describe the appropriate elements of other program reql.JirElll1ents,inch,iding SpiIJPrevention Control and
Countermeasures (SPCC) plans required under Section 311
of the CWA and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and Best
Management Programs underAO CFR 125.100.
I.
The plan is considered a
r~port
that shall be available to the public under Section 308(b) of the CWA. The .permlttee may claim
portions
of the plan as confidential business Information, including any portion describing facility security measures.
. J.
The plan shall Includethesignatl.Jre and title of the person responsible for preparation of the plan andinclude the date of initial
preparation and
each amendll1eI1Hhereto.
Construction Authorization
K.
Authorization Is hereby granted to conStruCt treatment works and related equipment that may be required by the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan developed pursuant to this
permit.
. This Authorization Is issued SUbject to the following conditlon(s).
1.
If any statement or representation is found to be. incorrect, this authorization may be revoked and the permittee there upon waives
allrlglits thereunder.
2.
The
issuan~
pfthisautho.rizatIon (a) does not reJ.ease the permItteetrClm any
lia~i1ityfor
damage to persons or property caused by
or resulting from the installation, maintenance or operation ofthe proposedfacirttles; (b) does not take into consideration the structural
stability
of any units or part of this project; and (c) does not release the permittee from compliance With other applicEible statutes of
the State of U1inois, or other applicable local law, regulations or ordinances.
3.
Plans and specifications
of all treatment equlpll1ent being included as part of the stormwater managemellt practice shall be Included
in
the SWPPP.
4.
Construction activities which result from treatment equipment installation, Including clearing, grading and excavation activities which
resultln the disturbance of one acre or more of land area,are notcovered by this authorization. The permittee shall contact the IEPA
regarding the required pei'lllit(s).
..
. ..
REPORTING
L.
The facility shall submit an annual inspection report to the Illinois Environmental Protection AgenCy...The
report
shall.include results
of the annual facility Inspection.....hich Is required by Part GClfthe StonnWater Pollution Prevention Plan ofthis permil The report
shall also include
dOcUmehtationofany event (spill. treatmerin.iriitmalfunctlon;etc:) WhichwouldreqlJirean inspection, results of
the inspection, and any subsequent corrective maintenance activity. The report shall becoll1pletedandsigneclby the authorized
facility employee(s) who
conducted the inspection(s).
M. The first report shall contain information gathered during the OIle yeartime period beginning
withthe effectlve dateaf coverage under
this permit and shall be submitted no later than 60 days after
this
oQeyearperiodhasexpired~
Each subsequent report shall contain
theprevious year's iriforrT1atibri arid
sh~lIbesubmitted
nolaterthariorieyearaftertheprevlousyear"s repOrt was due.
.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
Page 10
NPDES Permit No.IL0001589
Specjal
ConditionS
N. Annual inspection reports shall be mailed to the following address:
illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Bureau of Water
Compliance Assurance
Section'
Annual Inspection Report
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office
Box 19276
Springfield, illinois
62794--9276
/'-'j
~
Modification Date: June
22, 2007
O. If the facility performs inspections more frequently than required
by
this permit,
the
results shall be included as additional Information
in the
annual report.
SPECIAL CONDITION 11. The Permittee shall record monitoring results on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Forms using one such
form for each outfall each month.
In the event that an outfall does not discharge during a monthly reporting period, the DMR Form shall be submitted
with
no discharge
indicated.
The Pennitteemay choose to submit electronic DMRs (eDMRs) insteadofmalllng paper DMRs to the IEPA. More information, including
registration information for the
eDMR program, can be obtained on the IEPA website, http://www.epa.stateJl.oslwater/edmrlindex.html.
The completed Discharge Monitoring ReportJorms shall be submitted
to
IEPA no latefthanthe 15th day of the following month, unless
. otherwise specified
by
the permitting authority.
'
Permittees not using
eDMRs shall mail Discharge Monitoring Reports wIth an original signature
to
the IEPA at the following address:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution
Control
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office
Box 19276
Springfield, illinois 62794-9276
Attention: Compliance Assurance Section, MaUCode #19
SPECIAL CONDITION 12. For the purpose of this permit, discharges from outfall 002 are limited
to
overflow from the stormwater retention
basin, free
from additional process or other discharges.
SPECIAL CONDITION 13. The permittee shall monitor the nitrogen concentration of irs oil feed stocks and report the concentrations to
the Agency on an annual basis. Reports shall be submitted no later than 60
day~
after the end ofthe calendar year.
SPECIAL CONPITION 14. The pemJittee
may
use
the
upset provision as an affilTJlatlve defense provided all the requirements of 40 CFR
122.41(n) are met.
SPECIALCONDmON 15. Discharge from this facility shall be in
accordan~ ~th
35111. Adm. Code SectIon 304.213 for ammonia nitrogen.
1111s
secfiotl
requires ihai: the discharge meet BAT limitations pursuant
to
40 CFR 419.23, as well as ammonia nitrogen concentration limits
of 9.4 mgll as a monthly average and 26.0mgfl as a daily maximum.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
Page 11
NPDES Permit No.IL0001589
Special Conditions
SPECIAL CONDITION 16. Storm Water Credit for Outfall 001;
'~
Modification Date: June
22~
2007
..
An additional stormwater credit for the following parameters shall be calculated based on 100% of the stormwatar flow as defined below.
Parameter
.
BOD
Total Suspended Solids
COD
Oil and Grease
Phenol
Cr (tot)
Cr(+6)
Pounds per 1000 gallons of stormwater
Average
0.22
0.18
1.5
0.067
0.0014
0.0018
0.00023
Maximum
0040
0.28
3.0
0.13
0.0029
0.0050
0.00052
Dry Weather Flow.- The average flow from the. waste water treatment facility for the last three'consecutive zero precipitation days.
Previously collected stonn water shall not be
Include~.
Stormwater Flows - The stormwater runoff which Is treated In the waste water treatmentfacility shall be defined as that portion of the flow
greater thanthe dry weather flow.
In computing monthly average permit limits to include stormwatefcredit, the poundcredit calcl.llatedaboveshall be averaged along with
process pound limits over the 30 day period. Explanatory calculations and flow data shall
be
submitted logethenOJiihdischarge monitoring
~~.
.
The stormwater credit does not authorize the permittee to exceed the concentrationlirnils contained in effluent Limitations and Monitoring,
Page 2.
.
SPECIAL CONDITION
17.
a) The discharge
from outfall A01 shall be subject to the following limitations:
During the months of April through November, the discharge shall not exceed 90° F, except that one percent o(the hours in any 12
month period may exceed 90° F but shall never e)Cceed
93°
F at any time.
The monthly average and monthly maximum value shall be reported on the OMR. The psrmittee shall also report the total number
hours the temperature exceeds 90
0
F.
b) The waters receiving the dischargefronl outfall OOtara designated as Secondary Contact and IndigEmoosAquaticLife Waters by
Section
3020408,
Illinois Administrative Code, TiUe 35, Chapter 1, Subtitle C, as amended. These waters shall meet the following
standard:
..
Temperatures shall not exceed
93°
F more than 5% of the time, or 100° F at any time at the edge ofthe mixing zone which Is defined
by Rule 302.102 of the above regulations.
'...
The monthly maximum value shall
be
reported on
the
OMR form. In lieu ofmonitoring at theEldge ofthe mixing zone, the permittee
may demonstrate compliance
with this paragraph by monitoring at outfall 001.
SPECIAL CONDITION 18. The permittee was granted a variance from the water quality standard for Total Dissolved Solids (TOS) for the
discharge at outfall
001 in accordance with Illinois Pollution Control Board Order PCB 05-85. The permittee shall commence Its study of
downstream TDS concentraUons in accordance with the schedule contained in this order. This permit
may
be
modified to include any final
limitations or monitoring requirements which may be necessary based on the results of the study, or future Illinois Pollution Control Board
actions with result to Total Dissolved Solids water quality standards. This variance expires on December 15,2009.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
Page 12
SPECIAL
CONDITION 19:
/
--'-,
NPDES Permit No.IL0001589
Special Conditions
Modification Date: June 22. 2007
.a.
From the effective date of this permit until such time that the FCCU Scrubber System becomes operational, monitorlngfor
Total Residual Chlorine
(IRC) is only required during those times when breakpoint or superchlorination
i$
used forshort term
ammonia treatment in the treated water basin. Prior to discharging from the treated water baSin following chlorine treatment,
the permittee shall take a
grab sample from the basin to determine GomplianQEl withtheTRC limit ofO.05mgll.. The discharge
from the basin shall then be sampled once per day using a grab sample,for aperlodof'fjve<daysafterresuming the ........•..
discharge. The permittee shaUsubmlt an attachment to the DMR
explalningthereaSOnforth~
temporarychlmine treatment,
the amount of chlorine used, and length of the temporary cessation of discharge. The maximumconcentratlon recorded shall
be
reported on the DMR.
b.
The perrriittee shall natifytheAgencyln writing
30
days (or as soon as practicable) prior to the start of operation ofthe FCCU
Scrubber Break Point Chlorination
System~
Upon start up of the break point Chlorination system. tile discharge from Outfall
001 shall be monitored on a continuous basis for Total Residual Chlorlliealidsl.lbjecttoa IlrriltofO.05 mgllas an
instantaneous maximum. The maximum recorded'concentration shall be reported an the DMR.
c.
In tile event that the continuous monitoring system .Is not functioning or needroutillEfmalnterrahce, the permittee may
substitute a once per day grab sample at
.Outfall 001 until such time that the continuous analyzer is operational. The
permittee shall include an attachment to the DMR explaining the reason and length of the outage. .
SPECIAL CONDITION
20: For the purposes of compliance at Outfall 001, sall1plesJorhexavalen!chrornlulllsnall<betakenat a point
prior to entering the aeration basin. Upon commencement of operation of the FCCU ScrubberSystem. the discharge from internal
Outfall A01 shall also be sarripledon a monthly basisfol'hexavalent chromium. Compliance with hexavalent chromium load limits at
outfall 001 shall be determined by multiplying the concentration times the flow for Outfall A01 plus the concentration times the
flOw
prior to entering the treated water basin.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
"~;~;.
,
/
;~K/~~r~'~i~ir,~j*WI&<-'~;~~~i!l#;~··'
l!/lf,'oI'illi~
f1ftdf~AliS"i4':rA-~~:~~<;Wct~~l?~;:~~:i;V!'e5
...
...
...
.~~
~
for II pGlilIIt modIfk:B'dal1. I1lvtltiiIion
<Uld
i-elS~e...
or tilrmlnl!lWfl.
cii.ii
noUlicalion
or planned dlang"l or antiCipated noncomplianCe. does not
Slay
any
pennlt condillon.
ProPerty
r1ghtll.
Thls
penn~
does not convey any property rlgh\$ of any SOIl, or any
excIuslve privilege.
QlItytoprovlda Inform.Uon.
Tile
permittee shall fumlsh to the Agency
Within a
reasonable
lima. SlY
lnfOmlalIonwhlch lheAgencymayrequeal
todelenn~whelher
C8Ulaex!sls for modifying. revoking end reIssuing, or
t~riallng
lhis p8l'rri1l or
to
detenninecornpllance with
the permit. The
permlllee sllall.o
rurnl~h
to the Agency.
UPOIl
requesl. coples
or. records required 10 be kept
by
thl. pClrmll.
lnapacllon and unity. Tbe po/millee shan
allow
an authOrized representalive of lhe
Agency, upon the presentotion
of a&denlials
and other
dcx:umenls liS
may be required
b)'~.to:
..
tb)
Elite~lIponlhilPermlttee·lIpre.~whefell
regulatadracUilyor
~c1lvity
Is
loaIled or COOducled. or where
reoorcls
musl be kepi under
the
cond~lon$
Dr thii
perrnll:
lb)H....
e~eS$IO
IltliIcopy; airessonabfeilmei.
any
teeoi"ds
thai must
be
kepi
untlerllMie~nd~ron.Qflh1s
pennlt:
(C)
InS~c:t ~
reasonllblf:
times
anY facilities. eqUipment (lnc1udlilrj
monitoring
end
.i::OilIrii\equlplnonl)•• pradlcel, oropera!iOnS'regul"tedorrequlnid under
W.
lllii'iillt;lind .
(d) S./IlJl\e ormonRoratteasonable< llmfl. for lhepurposeof assuring
permh
cornplarlte,orBSolhelWlse lIUthoriZed by
the
Ad. any
subsllinces
or parameters
atll!lY
Iocalion;
MonltA:lrlrig
and
reCOrds.
(a) Samples llind measurements laken for
the
purpose of mon"oring shall be
representtlllva of lite monRor.d activity.
(b)
The.. pe\1Jllllee
5hau..
"!litJn.A,J~dsofa.mon.orlng.lnionnallon.
including
all
caUbre0on.nd malritlinance.recorlls,
and
aUorIllillalllrlpcharl
recordings
for
COIlIlnUOllsmon~orlng·
Ntnimenllllioi\,coples
.of
ilUreports IIlqulred
tF'/ lhis
~
and
rean\s
of
eU cIaIiIullBd to
~Iete
the
appliclllJonfor>lhI$
penn~.
for
a
~ot .tlea$\3yea~
from
the.dete.ofthlaperrnit.measurernelrt.
rClport or
.appl/CIItiOn.'I'hlsperfoclllllly,.
mended by request of
the
Agency ..
any Ume
(c)
~c:Ordi·Oi:mMitQrlng
.
'"
." :'. ":
inr~
-
-:.:
".-'
,haillrielude:
(1) ilIedal8. exaet place•• niI
time.ol
samplngclrrne~$UlemanlS;
(2)
The
Indlvldual{l)
who performadlhe .empllng ormeasurernents:
(3)
Tba
date(l)
anaJy....
wWeper:fonned:
(4) Th.lnd"rIdual(B) who petfonned Iha analyses;
(5)
The8llidytlcaltOctli11lluel
orrnethOtls USed; 'nd
(61 The r..ults
of
llldIatlaly.e..
Cd) MonItJrWlO muSlbeCOl'ldlleteciliccoldhQ to.t4sI prccedurelapproVed under .40
eFR Part 136.un1ess otherlest pniCBdui'li8 havebetn sPBclfIedlnthlspermlt.
Vv1ll/l'8110 tellProcedura under
.!W(;fRPar:t
138
has.~~napprovad,
1he
. pennlleell1Ust.llltlrnlttlllhe"VflnCJ'
I
~method
rorapProVaLThejlilnnlaee
tIlatlcallbl'ateand
pCltlonnmalnte1llll'icllproc:edur$lon liRmonllorlng and
analytical lnsllUmenta1ion atlntllMlls to ensure accuracy of lnUSUtemenl•.
_.t)
8lgnatoryraqulrament.
AU
appUcat!ons. reports
or Inronnalion
submilled
to
the
Agen~
tIlall be slgnedanef
certirl8d.
(II)
ApPIlcltlon.
AIl.permitapPllcatlonslhaJl be signed 81
folows:
(1)
F~. ~~~C1~~by
a_pal
8Xe~
ClflIcerIlf '"least
the level or
vice
~
c:lI"..peraonorpDSlllanllavingoveratlresponlibllity for
iInvIronrrilintalrrillttfli'a rot lhei:c:irJlClrBl!ori:
(2) For
a P.rtn.,..hlp
orllOlepiopri8tOiship:
by a
gecier8tplil1ner
or
1118
proprietor, re.pecllvely;
or.
.
(3) For a Illllnlcipality.
stale. Federal,
orothllr
plIbIlcagGncy:
byeflhera
prlnclpal eXllCllllv1l ofIIcer or raiildng
eJedad
ofliclaL .. .
(b) Reporta.
Aurepoi1l
racjundby pennlts. orOtherlnfonn1lllonl8Clullaledby
Ihli
Ag.ncy tIlall
be
'fgnedby a parson descrlblld
IRpiltagrBph (ajor by
e dUly
IUlhorIzedrapre...ntaWe of
that
person. A person isl
dul~
aulhoriXed
repttS8ntatll/8 cinly
If:
.
.
(I) The
aulhorizallon
Is
made In wrIilg IIy e person
desalbed
In paragrap/1
('1:
and
(2)
Th,llU!hoIimtion speclIIeUltheunlndlvlt:iual
or
aPQS1l1on ntSlM"I.lbtefCll
lhe
oveatll
operation
OfIleJ
aclllIy; ...whIClith.ditChaiIl..atlgll1....SlIC'II
Iirid.
•••. 11 Plllnt
.
manager.lupemta'nderitor
.. ..
plI/1Cln
.
oteqUlvaiBlit
.
responSlbMY.
'1I8ncy
meanS
Ihe
IUinol. Envlronmenl8l ProlecUOO
Agency.
Ioard mealls
the
Uflllois Poltullon Control90lWd.
!Jean
WalerAct
(formesty referr&d 10
as 1M Federal Waler Pollution Control Ad) means
tub. L 92.500. as amended. 33 U.S.C. 1251
at
seq.
IpDES
(NaUonal
Ponutanl
Disd1argo
Elimination
S)'Slem) means
the
nalional program for
!*'ling.modifying.
revoklng
and re1ssulng.
terminating. rnonilol1ng ..
d
enforcing pennlls. and
pposlng
and
enforcing preuealment requiremenl••
utlder
Sections
307.~2.318end
405
, the
Clean Water Act.
ISEPA meilns the Unlled Stales Environmenllli PtOlll(;\lonAgency.
lafly
DJs<:huge
rnaans
.lhe. dt$chargeol'a poliUlen1 me8lUl'eddlA'iriga ClIlendar day or any
M-holrperlod that reasonably
rejlnlsenls
lheC!ll.nd.,.
dllYforpurposesofAl'l1P~ng
•.•
for
lOilutanlswi\hllmiialions
express&dln.un~s
of mass;th•• "daily
dlsetWaO"lscalClJl~
u
lie
total mass of
the
pollutanl dlsc:hallJed over
thedlly.ForpoIM~wfllfllmllallon'
tlC~
In other units of
m~suremenls.the·dallyd1schargO"
Is
ceJc\ilaled.8sthe._raga
ne8Slftmenl or thepoUulanl
over
the day.
.
"llimum
[lIlly blschlrge L1rnllaUon (dally maximum) means lhe highest allowable
dally
llachal\le.
Standard
CondlUons
DeRnlUons
~I
means the IllinOis Environmental PlOleclion Acl, 415 ILCS 6 as Amended.
'loW
Propor1loria' COmpo"ta sample means a comblnallon ofaamPle .l!quo!S of Blleast
JOO mUmiters coIlec1acj
at
period/clnlaNala such lhIIl.eftffilrlhe tInle Inteivalbetween each
ilIquotor the v0llunil
of
8l1c:h
arlQllOlls
proportkmaltoellh8f th.1liUm
flow at
\heUme 01
I8mprlllgorthe
totllll~am
Clow since Ule coRecllon of
the
previous auquot.
(1) Duty to comply.
JIll;
pelmKtee must comply wllh aD
cOi1dl1~i1s
Or this
~.
Any
pennII
noncompliance COlIIlilules II
lliolallon
of
lie
Id. lind
Is
gll:ll.lrida tor ilrifon:emanl
IIcIlon.
Petmltlernl8laticli'l. rlll/Ocalion and
nslnuance.
modlflcallan.or tor denial of •
pennllr8iiliWalliPPU~lon;
• TblI
pennillee
shaD comply
\OIIb etrblnt -'andardi
or
fIrOhlbItIonaestabilsh8dllllderSecllon307(a) of 1he.Ciean water Id.
far toxic
poIklI8nls wfIhln
the
timelll'O'llclad
In the regiJlauons
lhatestablish lheMstai1danls 01
prohlbllIons. even N
the pennlt has not yet"bftn
modified
to
IncorporaIe th.
A1qulrement.
(2) Duty
to",~ply.
r
the
perIlilIee WIshes
to
conlk1l1elllldvly rilgulated
by
this
perml
lifter the expiration date of this pennH.
the
pennlUee must epply
for and obtain
II
new
pennIL lithe
~e
sullmits a proper applicallon _ reqlIlred
by
lIl~Aglflcyno
laler
than
180deys
prior
to lhll
ellplratlondate. this
permit
shan~1n
filUfon:elinc1
effec!
unt~
(M final Agency decision on
the
application hae bilen mad•.
(3) Netdtoh:llt or n1dllceaetlv/ty nota
~;e.na
•• ItIhllD n!it" a
lr"'~.far.
pennlloe
In
an enrorcement acllon thatR
wouIcI '-
been _SIll)'
14halt
orr.dU~
the
pennIIled IIC1lvfly In ortl8l.tc maillllln compliance
wllh
thecondllfons of Ihlspennlt.
.(4) Duly
~
mlUgata. The permittee niltaka all
relltonable steps
to mlnlmll. or prevent
any discharge In vlolsllon
of this pennlt
whiCh has • nsasonab/il Rkelihood of
adversely
allectlng human health
or
the
envlrorvnent. .
(5) Prop«oparatlon and malnlllnance.The
pennltlee shall at
11I1
times
property operata
and malnlaln all
facil~lesand
syslarnaoJ InlItmentand control (and related
.ppurten~)whlc:h.lV.lI\Ilanedorused
by
ChePennlllllllto
IIChlevecompDanCII
With «mdiliorls.
ofltils
P'T'll.. Proper
ope~lian
8Ildmail\enliilClil incIiiikt1eff8etiw
pei1
0
itllatiCli.
adeqlia\e.
f!lriding•.
eclllqlialellPllr.~·
iInd
tralnlilg.
andaciiiqulile
laboratory and.process COI\lrols'
.hdiidlngepproprlal~
quallty
.ssurlll1C8procadll~"
This ptOVlslon
requires the.
operation
of
baCk~;
or
auxJllall'
faclliUel.
C1tslriillil'
systemsonl,
when
riecessliry to lIChJeve complIlInce wlIh
the
cOiidlliana ofthlll
pIRnk.
..
'mage Montb!y
Dlic;harge
Umltallon (30 dayaverage)lml8I1sthehlghmlllQW8b'-
Iverage of dally dlscfla,l\les over a Caleridarl'llClll1h.i:alculllt8d as the sum
01
IIlIdiilly
lischarges measured during a
cale~r
month divided by Ihe number of danYdlsdlarges
neasured
during that month.
.
'vmg8
W"~ly D~Cllliv'lJml(allon(7dllyave~e)
milaMlhe
highest
allowable
lVerage or daily discharges •over ..ealendar week,.
ca~lated
8.
the. sum
01..
all dally
Jrsdlarges measured during
a
calendIWweek divided bylhe number Of dallydl'chlll'Jles
neasured durll1llthal
\l{eek.
.
. .
asll
M.a~gemel1t Pra~Ucn
(BMP.) mean. schedules
oractiviIiR. prohlbillons
Of prllcllce..
IIlIk1t8lllll\Oll
proc,ell~r#.
and<1f1l~r
rtanaQl!IJlent
practices to
prevent or reducelhe polutlon
If wlitersor lheSla\e.IlMPs
.lSo.lnCklde
trutrne'1l
/llqU1r~.
/lP8IlIII1l1ll procediril,•
.-id
ncllces to
coIltJi:II
plartllfta
rimolf•• pYlage
or le.dcs.s1uclge cwwililedilpo.... or dllilrllllle
rom
raw
mltilriahtorage.
~nqllOt
meliMa Ul1\Pleof specirl8dYj)lume used
to
makeup a tOtal
compo~lle'8lTlpl"
~rab
Slmll1alllllMs
8tllndivldWIumpleof
at
least 100 m11i1iler1 coReeled al alWlCll)llllyo
lOlected
l/i1Ie overa
period
notex~dlng15
rrilmiies.
14 HOIlr CompoSite Slimplemeans a
cOmbination
of at leasl8 sample allquots
of
at
lea..
!OO
mlllililAlrs. coU8Cled at
periodic
lnIeMIla during the operating hours
of
a
fllClUiy
oller II
24.
lOUr period.
IHour CompoSIte Sampl'meansa
comblnatioriofallllaal31ll111ple
aliquotsDrat lea.,1oo
=~.
coUeCled -' periodlc InlelVaIs duril1llthe oplraUng hOUrs of a
tacllty
over an I-hour
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
Exhibit C
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
, ,
-'
'-,'
CITGO WATER INTAKE
2007 CHLORIDE AND TDS RESULTS
Chloride,
Total Dissolved
Date
mgIL
Solids, mgIL
01101107
174
689
01105/07
156
657
01108/07
113
454
01112/07
133
576
01119/07
239
662
01122/07
203
666
01126/07
384
876
01129/07
286
1656
02102107
225
800
02105107
227
459
02/09/07
181
666
02/12/07
224
619
02/16/07
181
532
02/19/07
695
1181
02/23/07
549
1245
02/26/07
600
1520
03/02/07
734
1487
03/05/07
616
1332
03/09/07
395
1076
03/16/07
350
1131
03119107
340
1075
03/23/07
281
950
03/23/07
281
761
03126107
415
Average
333
916
Maximum
734
1656
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
Exhibit D
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
//~,.-\
'\~
-,-
Des Plaines River at the 1.55Bridge
Sulfate
and TDS Data
DOWNSTREAM RIVER WATER
Total Dissolved
Date Sampled
Sulfate (mg/L)
Sollds(mgIL)
02/28105
95
800
03/09105
99
840
03/UI05
95
900
03/15105
92
900
03122105
98
860
03125/05
100
890
04/01105
95
770
04/05/05
69
750
04/12105
100
760
04128/05
76
730
05103/05
490
720
05/10105
96
760
05/19/05
120
610
05124/05
65
610
05131105
67
630
06/07105
96
700
06114105
67
510
06f21105
77
540
06128105
91
520
07/05/05
100
520
07/12105
62
510
07/19/05
69
480
08102105
62
410
08110/05
56
440
08117/05
47
430
08123/05
53
400
08/31105
94
400
09/13/05
48
340
09120105
54
300
09128/05
51
360
10104/05
48
290
10111105
57
380
10/19/05
40
470
10128105
62
500
11101/05
88
460
11109105
98
480
1lI17/05
89
530
11121105
81
570
11130105
110
480
12106105
89
590
12113/05
90
620
12120105
100
870
12128105
100
790
01104106
100
880
01110106
100
900
01/19106
110
740
01124/06
92
720
01131/06
100
840
02107/06
100
780
02114106
110
800
02/21106
120.
840
02128106
95
760
03/09106
95
720
03113106
89
700
03122106
84
700
04113106
110
650
04118/06
93
520
04125106
100
550
Average
92
630
Maximum
490
900
Source: PCB R06.24. EKbibil 6A
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
DESPLMNES~VERTDSSAMPUNG
I-55 Bridge
Date
11/21/06
11/28/06
12/04/06
12/06/06
12/08/06
12111/06
12/13/06
12/15/06
12118/06
12/20/06
12/21/06
12/26/06
12/27/06
12/29/06
01102/07
01/03/07
01105/07
01108/07
01110107
01/12/07
01115107
01117/07
01/19/07
01/22/07
01124/07
01126/07
01/29/07
01131/07
02/02/07
02/05/07
02/07/07
02/09/07
02112107
02114/07
02/16/07
02/20/07
Total Dissolved Solids,
mg/L
590
600
620
670
650
700
660
660
700
700
680
520
540
570
600
580
440
420
520
500
690
620
740
750
720
710
940
960
860
740
800
770
770
710
730
700
Page 1 of 2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
i/..
"'~
,.~;
DES PLAINES RIVER TDS SAMPLING
I-55 Bridge
Date
02/21107
02/23/07
02/26/07
02/28/07
03/02/07
03/05107
03/07/07
03/09/07
03/12/07
03/14/07
03/16/07
03/19/07
03/22/07
03126107
03/28/07
03/29/07
03/30/07
Average
Maximum
Total Dissolved Solids,
mgIL
1000
1100
1200
1300
1200
1100
1100
980
1000
1000
870
790
790
700
720
690
740
762
1300
Page 2 of 2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
Exhibit E
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
...¥~-
L~~
__
~J
I
FCC SCRUBBER
FALLING FILM
EVAPORATOR
MECHANICAL VAPOR
~
RECOMPRESSION
I
CLEAN \lATER
TO WATER REUSE
FORCED CIRCULATION
I
~I
CENTRIFUGE (
~
I
~I
CRYSTALLIZER
CONCENTRATED MOTHER LIQUOR
T
WATER VAPOR
DRYER
PURGE
CONVEYOR
SILO
I;--__
--+.r-RUC~OS~~~~O~~~FATE
SODIUM
SULFATE
CADEnLE. CITGI:l.CO£P
REFINERY \lASTEIJATER
•
-1TREATMENT FACILITIES
ICONCEPTFORSOD~SULFATERECOVERY
CONCEPTUAL PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Back to top
FOREVAPORATION ALTERNATIVE
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
Exhibit F
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY
OF COOK
)
) SS.
)
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
-
IN THE MATTER OF:
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION and
PDV MIDWEST REFINING, L.L.C.,
Petitioners,
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB
_
(Variance
- Water)
Affidavit of Brigitte Postel
I, Brigitte Postel, being first duly sworn upon oath, depose and state as follows:
1.
I have been employed by CITGO Petroleum Corporation ("CITGO") for the past
three (3) years. I have worked at the Lemont Refinery since October, 2003. At Lemont Refmery,
I have held the position
of Environmental Engineer, Water Coordinator. I received a Bachelor of
Science
in
Chemistry from the University of lllinois, Champaign-Urbana and a Masters of
Science
in
Environmental Engineering from Lamar University, Beaumont Texas.
2.
I have read the Petition for Extension
of Variance dated November
13 ,
2007, and
based upon my personal knowledge and belief, the facts stated therein are true and correct.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
\)t\ft:
Q~
Subscribed
.'P12
sworn to me
before this
atJcIay of
November, 2007
~~
Notary Public
•••••••••••••••••••••••••
:
"OFFICIAL SEAL"
:
:
ROSE MIGLIO
:
:
Notary Public, State of Iilinois :
•
My Commission Expires 3/29/08 •
•
•••••••••••••••••••••••••
•
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, November 14, 2007
* * * * * PCB 2008-033 * * * * *
