BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND )
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE
)
CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM)
AND LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
35 ILL. )
ADM. CODE 301,302,303 AND 304
)
R08-09
(Rulemaking - Water)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
See Attached Service List
Please take notice that on January 18,2008, we electronically filed with the Office
of the
Clerk
ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board the attached QUESTIONS SUBMITTED ON
BEHALF OF LEMONT REFINERY OF CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, a copy of
which is served upon you.
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, and PDV
MIDWEST,
, Petitioners
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, January 18, 2008
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND )
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE
)
CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM)
AND LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. )
ADM. CODE 301,
302,303 AND 304
)
R08-09
(Rulemaking - Water)
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF LEMONT REFINERY OF
CITGO
PETROLEUM CORPORATION
These questions are submitted for response by Agency witness[es] at the forthcoming
hearings in this proceeding. They address proposed changes which could adversely affect the
Lemont Refinery. These questions go beyond the pre-filed testimony of the Agency; these
questions which are based on the Petition and supporting exhibits are presented first, followed by
detailed questions to the Agency witnesses.
The subject matter
of these questions is divided into four principal parts: (1) questions
going to the timing and completeness
of the proposal; (2) questions going to the relationship [or
lack thereof] between the uses proposed by the Agency for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal,
and downstream segments such as the Brandon Pool, and the water quality standards for those
waterways; (3) questions going to the bases for the proposed chloride, temperature and bacteria
standards for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal; and (4) questions going to the lack of
information on technical feasibility and economic reasonableness for proposing to apply the
proposed water quality standards, and in particular, to the discharge from the Lemont Refinery.
It
is requested that the Agency provide answers to the specific questions posed, and not
provide a "general" statement which is not specifically responsive to these questions. The
Lemont Refinery reserves its right to conduct follow-up questioning of the Agency witnesses and
requests the Hearing Officer to allow that to occur in an orderly manner, rather than "waiting
until the end" to clarify or engage in follow-up questioning. We respectfully suggest that the
record will be more orderly and easier to review
if this approach is followed.
I.
Questions Relating to the Timeliness and Completeness of the Proposal
1.
This proposal is a very significant undertaking that will have serious economic
implications on existing discharges and also retard any growth potential within the drainage
basin. The UAA Reports recommend numerous additional studies and evaluations. There is no
conclusion that the aquatic biota will be better after the expenditure or that recreational use will
increase, despite the billions
of dollars anticipated being expended by just MWRDGC and
Midwest Generation. This leads to two fundamental questions:
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
a.
standards?
Why not complete those studies before adopting the revised water quality
b.
Why not prioritize the streams, and undertake the changes one at a time?
If one accepts that the MWRDGC does not have unlimited resources, then shouldn'tthey
focus
on those projects that will have the greatest return on investment first? Besides
convenience to the Illinois EPA and the U.S.
EPA's desire to eliminate the
Secondary
Contact
designation, there is no reason to combine all of these waterways in a single rule
making proceedings. To expect the MWRDGC to expend so much money on
disinfection, including on CSO points, with no basis that this will actually result.in fewer
water borne diseases is questionable use
of our society'sresources. As the results of the
on-going epidemiologic study are not yet available, why change the disinfection
requirement now?
2.
Did the Agency consider taking the reaches that have the highest water
qualitylrecreational use potential - Upper North Shore Channel, Lower North Shore Channel,
Upper North Branch Chicago River, Grand Calumet, Lake Calumet, Little Calumet East, and
Little Calumet West - and focusing on these water bodies for the next decade? Would not such
an approach be a much better use
of society's money, and have the potential to really make a
difference.
3.
Pages 1-18
of the Chicago Waterway UAA Report recommends that the
feasibility
of wet-weather exclusions in the water quality standards be undertaken. Shouldn'tthis
be done before adopting standards that will result in the waterways being identified as impaired?
Couldn'tthis be extended to periods of snow melts, as well?
4.
The TARP program will be completed in 2016. Until we see what the impact
of
the completed TARP project will be on bacteria and dissolved oxygen, why adopt water quality
standards that have not been shown to be achievable during wet weather?
5.
What implications will adoption of all of these standards, where known violations
will occur, have
on the growth projections in the region?
6.
Did the Agency consider an implementation period, such as 10 to 20 years for
adoption
of the standards that are known will not be achieved?
7.
Has the Agency considered deferring those parts
of the proposal for which further
studies
or information are clearly needed, even expected, and proceeding with the aspects of the
proposal which are complete and not controversial?
Questions to Prefiled Testimony of Rob Suluski
8.
In what areas or training do you consider yourself an "expert"?
9.
In what areas are you being proffered
by the Agency as an "expert" for purposes
of this proceeding?
-2-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
10.
You indicate that you were the project manager for the CAWS UAA (Page 2).
What was your involvement in the lower Des Plaines River UAA? Why were they combined?
When did you first become involved with the Lower Des Plaines River UAA?
11.
Are you familiar with any deaths that have occurred due to small boats being
swamped by wake from barge traffic, in the waters presently known as "secondary contact
waters"? Are you aware of any human health effects due to the existing conditions in the
"secondary contact waters?"
12.
Are you aware of whether U.S. EPA even considered the unique circumstances of
the Chicago waterway system (sometimes known as one of the seven modem engineering
marvels
of the world) in developing the UAA regulation?
13.
The UAA criteria adopted by U.S. EPA does not appear to be justified for being
applied to a man-made waterway such as the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal ("CSSC"). Did
EPA even consider, when adopting the UAA rule, how it addressed a major engineering structure
such as the diversion
of water from Lake Michigan and routing the wastewater from millions of
people and hundreds of businesses down a single stream such as the CSSC?
14.
Has the UAA rule been updated to include considerations such as Homeland
Security issues as they apply to the CSSC?
15.
How does the UAA rule, if at all, take into account the safety issues associated
with the need for road salting and other safety related measures for the Chicago region and their
impact on the CSSC?
16.
Was the Coast Guard consulted with respect to the recreational boating prospects?
17.
How does the UAA rule, if at all, take into account the problems of invasive
species approaching the CSSC and Lake Michigan?
18.
How does the proposed rule differ from the last proposal circulated to the public?
Why was it changed?
II.
Questions Going to the Recommended Uses for the esse and the Accompanying
Proposed Revised
Water Quality Standards
The Agency finds, and recommends to the Board, that the CSSC from its confluence with
the Calumet-Sag Channel to its confluence with the Des Plaines River, and the Lower Des
Plaines River from its confluence with the CSSC to the Brandon Road Lock and Dam, should be
categorized
as a "Non-Recreational Use" water which precludes primary contact, incidental
contact and non-contact recreation due to physical or flow conditions or other restrictions.
[Statement
of Reasons, page 42]. The Agency also recommends grouping the CSSC and the
Lower Des Plaines River, from its confluence with the CSSC to the Brandon Road Lock and
Dam, as being part
of a category called Chicago Area Waterway System and Brandon Pool
Aquatic Life Use B waters. [Id. pages 46-47.] Based on these findings and recommendation,
what is the justification for the following:
-3-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
1.
What is the basis for "tak[ing] directly from the parallel provisions in ... Section
302.208" requirements to adopt "Acute Standards", "Chronic Standards" and "Human Health
Standards" and including them in a new 302.4077
[Id. page 62]
2.
In light of the uses of the esse and Brandon Pool "Use B" waters, what basis is
there to propose to apply the general use standards to these stream segments?
3.
In light of these uses, what is the basis for the Agency to recommend that "the
language is not intended to make a substantive change in the way the regulatory language [for
the general use waters]
is interpreted and applied." [Id. page 63]
4.
In light of these uses, what is the basis for the proposal to adopt general use water
quality standards for each
ofthe following parameters: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper,
cyanide, lead, mercury, nickel, total residual chlorine, zinc, benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and
xylene? Please specify as to each.
5.
In light of the following statement, why are the chemicals listed in the preceding
question even being considered for any change? ["Toxic metals
do not appear to be a toxicity
problem with the exception
of cadmium ... Gust upstream of the Brandon Road Lock and Dam)
depositional zone"
Id, page 67]?
6.
In light of the lack of fishing from the esse and the Brandon Pool, as reflected in
the "Use B" findings, what
is the basis for limiting Mercury and Benzene based on "fish
consumption" and establishing the standard as "exactly the same as the existing General Use
standard."
Id. pages 72-73.
7.
The proposal does not contain clear guidance on which fish species are to be used
to derive the discharge criteria. The Statement
of Reasons cites several trout and salmon species
which are not native to Illinois and certainly are not found in the
esse or the Brandon Pool
[pages
66 and 71]. Why are these species referenced and what is the actual proposed criteria to
be followed for discharges to the
eSSe?
8.
In light ofthe uses for the esse and the Brandon Pool "Use B" waters, what is
the basis for recommending that each
of the general use water quality standards for chloride,
iron, silver, selenium and sulfates be applied
to "Use B" waters?
9.
In light ofthe Agency recommendation that the D.O. for the esse and Brandon
Pool "Use B" waters allow a daily minimum of3.5 mg/l and a 7-Day Mean
of Daily minima of
4.0 mg/l, [Id. page 60, Table 1] what is the basis for recommending "general use" water quality
standards for other parameters for dischargers to the
esse and Brandon Pool? Will these D.O.
levels have an affect on the limited aquatic life in the
esse and Brandon Pool before any affect
from the other pollutants for which water quality standards are proposed?
10.
The Statement of Reasons states that "it is not uncommon for the system [the
water levels in the
esse in these stream reaches] to fluctuate 4 to 6 feet in level over a 48-hour
storm related period." Id. page 49. With respect to this statement:
a.
What stress does this change in water levels put on aquatic life?
-4-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
b.
How do the adverse affects from this fluctuation compare against any
documented or promised benefits
of adopting the proposed water quality standards in the
esse and Brandon Pool "Use B" waters?
c.
Were any of the u.s. EPA water quality criteria [Gold Book, etc]
developed using waters that had the turbulence and physical limitations that the
esse
and Brandon Pool "Use B" waters have?
d.
If there are benefits from applying more stringent water quality standards
[even
if not needed to attain the designated uses], will improving water quality standards
increase the likelihood
of invasive species migrating toward Lake Michigan up through
the
eSSe? If not, why not? If so, what steps are needed to protect Lake Michigan?
11.
The Statement of Reasons also states that the "Use B waters" have a "very poor to
poor habitat attributes", and that "such conditions are irreversible, in combination with other
factors, prevent Use B waters from maintaining a biological condition that meets the Clean
Water Act'sAquatic Life goal." Id page 50. In light
of these findings:
a.
Were any of the U.S. EPA water quality criteria [Gold Book, etc]
developed using waters that had the limited habitat and physical limitations that the
esse and Brandon Pool "Use B" waters have?
b.
What assurances can the Agency provide that if the foregoing "general
use" water quality standards are adopted that there would be any change in aquatic life in
the
esse and Brandon Pool "Use B" waters? Please describe in detail any benefits or
increase in aquatic life the Agency can predict would occur by adopting the general use
water quality standards to the
esse and Brandon Pool.
c.
What assurances can the Agency provide that if the "subpart F" criteria
were applied to industrial discharges to the
esse and the Brandon Pool, that there would
be any difference in aquatic life in the
esse and Brandon Pool "Use B" waters? If so,
please describe in detail and quantify the environmental benefit.
12.
IEPA Attachment R is a report prepared by Edward T. Rankin. Is the Agency
moving for the introduction to this as an exhibit?
a.
Does the Agency intend to bring Mr. Rankin to testimony for the next
round
of hearings?
b.
With respect to this report, does the Agency agree with Mr. Rankin's
assessment that the
esse has a habitat that is rated as "poor"? (See Table 1 and
accompanying text).
c.
Does the Agency agree with Mr. Rankin's statement, "this is above the
influence
of any additional chemical stressors, discharges, overflow or urban runoff
events."?
-5-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
d.
Does the Agency agree with Mr. Rankin's statement, "watersheds with
very degraded habitat are less able to support aquatic life consistent with the highest
aquatic life uses."?
e.
Does the Agency agree with Mr. Rankin's statement, "habitat in the CSSC
range from poor to very poor"?
f.
CSSC?
If so, why is the Agency tightening the water quality standards in the
g.
Does the Agency agree with Mr. Rankin's assertion that "barge traffic on
. the CSSC . .. can add important limiting influence" to the physical habitat that he
observed.?
h.
Given the importance under the UAA approach of documenting the actual
uses, why
is Mr. Rankin not being included as a witness?
13.
Does Attachment S have any data in it on the CSSC?
Questions to Testimony of Rob Suluski
14.
At Page 9 of your testimony, you state that the contractor for the CAWS UAA
concluded "that while water quality in CAWS was, for the most part, meeting Illinois General
Use Water Quality Standards, none
of the water bodies could achieve Clean Water Act goals due
to limitations described in the six UAA factors." Doesn'tthe Agency conclude that factors
preclude the CSSC (among others) from obtaining the Clean Water Act goals? Are not these
factors "irreversible"?
15.
If these factors are irreversible, then why is the Agency proposing to make the
water quality standards in the CSSC more stringent at all? Why make CSSC standards more
stringent than the standards for General Use Waters?
16.
Why didn'tthe Agency simply remove CSSC from this proposal and focus those
places where the UAA criteria would indicate that better water quality standards would improve
potential uses?
17.
As to the "non-recreational use" waters, are the statements at the top of Page 13 of
your prefiled testimony correct when you filed the testimony? Still true today?
18.
If so, given that these waters (which include the CSSC) have "very poor to poor
habitat" and those conditions are "irreversible", why are you proposing to make the existing
water quality standards (other than dissolved oxygen) more stringent? Why
is the Agency
proposing to make those standards for chemical and temperature discharges more stringent than
General Use Standards?
.Why are you adding requirements for ZIDs, including applying acute
and chronic calculated criteria?
Questions on Prefiled Testimony of Roy Smogor
19.
In what areas or training do you consider yourself an "expert"?
-6-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
20.
In what areas are you being proffered by the Agency as an "expert" for purposes
of this proceeding?
21.
At the bottom
of Page 6 and continuing to the top of Page 7 of your prefiled
testimony, you make the following statement "Illinois EPA is not proposing standards to protect
early life stages
of fish because these waters do not have the potential to consistently support
such early life stages." Is it correct that this statement was made with respect to justifying
dissolved oxygen standards?
22.
Why isn'tthe same consideration applied to the other parameters for which
revised water quality standards are being proposed for the CSSC? Why isn'tthis same principle
applied
to chlorides? To any of the other contaminants?
23.
Why is the Agency proposing to adopt "General Use Water Quality standards" for
these Use B Waters?
Questions on Prefiled Testimony to Scott Twait
24.
In what areas or training do you consider yourself an "expert"?
25.
In what areas are you being proffered by the Agency as an "expert" for purposes
of this proceeding?
26.
With respect to your statement that U.S. EPA'sNational Criteria documents or
information
... was significantly lacking for ... temperature and bacteria. (Testimony - Page 2).
In light
of the lack of U.S. EPA guidance, why did IEPA believe it necessary to proposed new
standards for temperature and bacteria?
27.
Do you have any information on aquatic life use designations in the CAWS
in
Lower Des Plaines River other than the information presented in the UAA consultant reports
(Exhibits 1 and 2)?
28.
Do you have any information on water quality standards necessary "to protect
aquatic life use designations" other than those included in the statement
of reasons for anyone of
the following chemicals: chloride, total dissolved solids, pH, chromium and total hexavalent,
cyanide, total residual chlorine, arsenic, chromium trivalent, silver, aquatic life standards for
mercury, cadmium, in the CSSC (Pre-filed testimony, pages 5 -
9).
29.
Do you have any information that the habitat characteristics of the CSSC as
presented in the testimony
of Mr. Suluski is incomplete or in error?
30.
Do you disagree with the statements in Mr. Suluski'stestimony that the Use B
Waters have very poor to poor habitat attributes? Do you disagree that such conditions are
irreversible? Do you agree such conditions prevent these waters "from maintaining biological
condition that meets the Clean Water Act Aquatic Life goal? (Page
17 ofMr. Suluski's
testimony).
-7-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
31.
If there are periodic excursions of the cadmium water quality standard, does that
mean that all dischargers will have effluent limits on cadmium set at the water quality standard?
If so, what is the economic implications of this?
32.
The recalculation for copper is to be determined by what method?
III.
Questions Relating to Proposed Standards for Chlorides
In light of the uses for the esse and the Brandon Pool:
1.
What is the basis to propose any chloride standard based on "general use" waters?
2.
Was the Agency aware that levels of chlorides in the esse already exceed 500
mg!l during snow-melt conditions?
If so, then what is the technical feasibility and economic
reasonableness of controls to achieve the proposed standard?
3.
Other than snow melt run-off, who are the sources
of chlorides in the esse and
Brandon Pool "Use
B' waters which would cause chloride levels to exceed the proposed 500
mg!l standard?
4.
What is the effect on mixing zones of industrial dischargers if the 500 mg/l
standard for chlorides were to be adopted?
5.
What is the effect on ZIDs of industrial dischargers if the 500 mg!l standard for
chlorides were to be adopted?
6.
What is the technical feasibility of controlling chloride run-off from snow-melt
and surface transportation?
7.
safety?
What is the cost
of controlling chloride form snow-melt and surface transportation
8.
Has the Agency considered whether the U.s. EPA criteria are intended for general
use waters, not for limited use waters such as esse and Brandon Pool "Use B Waters."?
9.
Does the esse and Brandon Pool have uses and aquatic life potential that would
allow them to achieve the conditions upon which the
u.s. EPA criteria recommendations for
chlorides were made?
10.
For chlorides, will the Agency impose a 500 mg!l on all NPDES permits, because
of seasonal exceedences due to highway de-icing? Will mixing zones for all discharges of
chlorides greater than 500 mg!l be eliminated on waterways with documented chloride
exceedences? Which dischargers to the esse would be affected?
11.
If chloride levels exceed 500 mg!l, what is the formula to calculate sulfates?
12.
Has the Agency evaluated the cost and effect of its proposed chloride water
quality standard on any dischargers?
If not, why not?
-8-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
13.
No discussion on chlorides is presented in the UAA, and the Agency'sproposal
does not address the impact the chloride water quality standard will have on the region. Will the
adoption
of this standard result in no new road construction because of the impaired water
designation?
14.
Will the chloride standard result in more traffic accidents/fatalities in the region
due to the requirement to reduce salt usage during inclement weather? Shouldn'tBest
Management Practices be implemented before adopting standards that may not be achievable?
15.
2005 data shows chloride levels, during the winter months, elevated above the
proposed 500 mg/l water quality standard at the Lockport Forebay location. This concurs with
eITOO's data. How will chloride levels above 500 mg/l impact CITOO's discharge when
CITOO is not the source
of the elevated chlorides?
16.
What will be the upstream location that CITOO uses to determine if the chlorides
are above the 500 mg/l, which in tum determines the water quality standard for sulfate?
17.
How will sampling and analytical turnaround of chlorides affect dischargers that
apply mixing zones for sulfate?
18.
Will dischargers of sulfates need to monitor the chloride levels everyday during
periods
of snowmelt to determine compliance with water quality standards?
Question to Rob Suluski
19.
How did IEPA decide that the major water quality constraints are temperature and
DO? What about chlorides? (Page 13).
Question on the pre-filed testimony of Scott Twait
20.
If the IEPA anticipates chloride violations, what consequence do they foresee? Is
it realistic to expect the chlorides in these waterways will attain a 500 mg/l chloride level over
the next twenty years?
21.
What is the Agency's strategy for achieving a 500 mg/l chloride standard in the
CSSC?
22.
chlorides?
How does the Agency plan to deal with overlapping mixing zones with respect
to
IV.
Questions Relating to Proposed Rule for Temperature
1.
Where thermal violations exist, does this mean the Agency will impose effluent
thermal limits at the water quality standards for all dischargers? Will mixing zones for all
thermal discharges to waterways that have thermal exceedences be eliminated?
2.
With respect to temperature, why is the Agency proposing a "period average"
temperature for the CSSC?
-9-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
3.
Has the Agency considered that biological treatment facilities need to provide
heat in the winter months to achieve nitrification?
Is the Agency proposing that such plants now
need "cooling towers"?
4.
In light of the uses of the esse [as the Agency found and noted above], what is
the basis - and the technical feasibility and economic reasonableness - for including a "period
average" temperature
as a water quality standard?
5.
In light of the poor biological conditions [as the Agency found and noted above],
what it the basis - and the technical feasibility and economic reasonableness - for including the
proposed temperature standard?
6.
In light of the uses and poor biological conditions, what is the basis for the
proposal to impose a temperature standard for the
esse which is more stringent than for general
use standards?
7.
With respect to the "representative aquatic species" [Id. page 81], which are
those? Which have been found in the
esse or Brandon Pool? When, where and how many?
Why are they "believed ... [to be] representative"
of the esse and Brandon Pool? In what
manner?
8.
What type of outreach to the existing industrial and municipal dischargers was
involved in assembling economic data?
9.
Attachment GG, Table 3 lists the long-term and short-term survival temperatures
for June
16 - September 15 based on modeling. How were the proposed temperature standards,
September
16 - June 15, derived from this data? Was the derivation based on scientific findings?
10.
Was Table 3 data field verified or was only modeling used?
11.
Does the Agency have any plan for achieving the proposed temperature
conditions other than the possible shut down
of a Midwest Generation plant?
12.
Are the proposed temperature standards attainable given the current uses of the
esse and Brandon Pool?
13.
What investigations has the Agency done for thetechnical feasibility for the
concept
of "period average" for the non-summer months?
14.
What investigations has the Agency done for changing the percentage of time
excursions can occur? What is the basis for choosing "two percent excursion hours"?
15.
Beyond what the Agency has suggested for Midwest Generation, what is the
technical feasibility and economic reasonableness for any discharger,
to meet the proposed
temperature standards?
16.
What is the basis for selecting a temperature proposal which is 100% protective,
and then adding a "safety factor"?
-10-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
17.
standard?
How will the Agency handle overlapping mixing zones in applying the thermal
Questions on Prefiled Testimony to Chris Yoder
18.
In what areas or training do you consider yourself an "expert"?
19.
In what areas are you being proffered by the Agency as an "expert" for purposes
of this proceeding?
20.
Do you consider yourself an expert compliance measures
to meet the water
quality standards identified in your report?
21.
Can you explain the methodology you employed? What water body was used to
develop the methodology? Are there similarities to the subject waters?
If so, what are they?
Are there distinguishing characteristics
to the subject water bodies? If so, what are they?
22.
Does the method require any presumptions?
If so, what are they? Did you collect
any field data in arriving at the original method?
If so, is it available? Where?
23.
Did you collect any field data from the subject waters?
If so, what data and is that
data also available?
24.
If the original temperature criteria dates back to 1970 and hasn'tbeen updated,
would it be useful to review it and employ modem knowledge and technology to determine
whether it
is obsolete?
25.
What thermal effects literature was used? What
is the procedure used to calculate
the thresholds for the various fish species? Who developed the procedure? Has it been reviewed
or discussed in peer review?
If so, where?
26.
Having developed this methodology in the 70's,have you employed any studies
to demonstrate the accuracy
of this model? Are you currently collecting data to demonstrate the
accuracy
of this model?
27.
You refer to over 500 literatme references, is there a list compiled of these
references and available for public review? With all the literature reviewed, how was conflicting
data negotiated? Did you consider any particular data or literature more authoritative than
others?
If so, which?
28.
Do you undertake the field characterization activities, or
is that done under the
direction
of your colleague, Dr. Rankin?
29.
How many years
of experience do you have since your graduation with a master
in zoology? Have you ever testified in a judicial proceeding as an "expert"?
30.
Is the methodology recommended in your report and outlined in your testimony a
methodology that has been accepted by
u.s. EPA as a national criteria for temperature?
-11-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
31.
Do you understand a technical justification or basis for the proposed temperature
standard from Illinois EPA providing that water temperature in Use B Waters that during the
winter months the water months the temperature cannot exceed 56.3
of in January? 55.6 of in
February? 59.2
of in March?
32.
Are you familiar at all with the proposed section 302.408(a) and (c)?
Do you
know whether the biological treatment plants would produce
an effluent that cold during the
winter months? Biological treatment plant with nitrification would produce an effluent that cold
during these winter months?
33.
Did you develop the "potential RAS lists for three designated use options"?
(Testimony - Page 9). Where is that list published?
Is that list included in the proposed rule?
Has any other peer reviewed reports that support the use
of either species for "secondary contact
waters"?
34.
Are the "represented aquatic species for the secondary contact list" actually found
in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal? In any Illinois secondary contact waters?
35.
What
is the basis for using period averages that ensure "100% long term survival
all representative species"? Would this
be true with species with a very poor to poor habitat?
36.
Would this be still true
if water levels could fluctuate 2 to 4 feet in a manner of24
hours? Do you have any experience with these kinds of fluctuations? Do you have any
experience with "very poor
to poor habitat" as it relates to temperature?
Questions on pre-filed testimony of Rob Suluski
37.
How do the QHEI assessments compare with historical Habitat Assessments by
EA? Why wasn'tthe historical data collected by EA utilized?
38.
What modeling was undertaken to determine the increase in DO from aeration?
What are current levels and what are the objectives? How were the objectives determined?
39.
Are there other options to flow augmentation? Are there other areas to employ
flow augmentation? Why these points? What modeling has been performed to estimate impact?
40.
What temperature outflow would be sufficient? What impact would the changed
effluent have on the water temperature? What modeling was employed?
Is temperature
reductions required at all five Midwest Generation locations? What other impacts to the
environment result from the effluent change? Did the Agency evaluate the impact evaporative
cooling would have on PM2.5 particulates air quality?
41.
Where are the supporting data/studies referred therein? What changes occurred in
DO levels with aeration rates and flow changes? Have the supplemental aeration systems
resulted in DO attainment under wet weather conditions? Under low flow conditions?
42.
The control technologies require permitting - is IEPA prepared
to issue permits
for cooling towers described herein? What is the cost for the cooling systems described? What
-12-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
would be the total temperature impact of a cooling process to the waterway temperature at each
location?
Questions on pre-filed testimony
of Scott Twait
43.
Has IEPA commissioned any
of the own studies on temperature? What
differences and similarities are there been the studied waters and the subject waters? Are the
existing temperature variances similar to those
of the studied waters?
44.
Did the independent expert have any prior dealing with the U.S. EPA? Did/does
the independent expert have any reasonable expectations
of future U.S. EPA contracts? Would
the results
of this study impact the likelihood of those future dealings?
45.
Did the IEPA or its Contractor review and utilize the extensive data collected by
EA over the past twenty years for Midwest Generation?
46.
Has the Yoder paper been peer reviewed or otherwise confirmed?
47.
How were the locations chosen for thermal sampling? What are they near? What
frequency were samples taken? What was the basis for assuming the Route
83 location was
representative
of "background" temperatures? Was depth and activity considered in choosing
the "background" location?
48.
How were the expected higher temperatures used? And
if these waters are
expected to be unnaturally high, then is it possible to truly have a "background" locale?
49.
Other than designating the various locations as the "background" temperature,
how were they used? Where the background locales selected before or after sampling began, and
by whom? Does the need to alter Yoder'sreport suggest his study to be inapplicable to these
waters?
50.
Why did the Agency not study the affected waters specifically and prepare a
report
of recommendation unique for these waters?
51.
Even without the modifications to Yoder'splans, doesn'tthe Agency plan to
recommend cooling processes?
If so, doesn'tthis further suggest that a clearer and specific
investigation
of these waters is warranted? Furthermore, would modeling or experimenting on a
section
of the river provide better data to determine whether such drastic measures are warranted,
or would even produce the intended results?
52.
Was all the data used over the 6 year period, or were outliers eliminated?
If so,
what criteria was adopted to determine outliers?
53.
Why were 75th percentile and daily maximum data used?
If this choice was a
diversion from the Yoder model, doesn'tthis further distinguish his study from the subject
waters?
54.
If multiple models are being blended, how the Agency assure stakeholders that
the expenses required to meet IEPA recommendations will produce the intended results?
-13-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
55.
Was a modeling done, specific to these waters, based on the temperature data,
geographical characteristics, flow rates and intended changes to demonstrate the Agency could
achieve its goals? If so, what changes did the modeling forecast?
56.
Since the Agency admits the proposed thermal standards to be more stringent, has
any experimentation or modeling been done to show the changes resulting from the tighter
standards?
If so, what differences have been demonstrated?
57.
When you say fish can tolerate short term elevations in temperature, what
qualifies as short term and what limitations
of elevation? Is there differences based on fish type?
Are there seasonal differences?
58.
How did the Agency determine the proposed excursion limitations? Were they
arbitrarily selected between current standards, or based on scientific data?
If data, what studies?
59.
Since the Agency acknowledges that thermal water quality standards were quite
challenging, would it be prudent to further investigate and model before spending considerable
amounts to attempt to change thermal characteristics which
mayor may not succeed and mayor
may not bring about the intended results?
v.
Questions Relating to the Proposed Rules for Bacteria
We expect others, such as MWRDGC, to take the lead on this topic and we defer to their
questions. However, several
of these questions relate to the same use and water quality
standards issues affecting the Lemont refinery and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
1.
The UAA, Pages 1-18 also recommends disinfection ofCSOs. Would not this
require large tanks
of sodium hypochlorite at each CSO, and a large holding tank for
disinfection? Where is the cost impact?
2.
What is the land use where these CSOs are located? Would the ones in residential
areas be inconsistent with existing land use?
3.
How much energy would be required to produce this sodium hypochlorite and the
carbon dioxide that will be emitted?
Questions on Prefiled Testimony of Rob Suluski
4.
Is wastewater disinfection economically reasonable? Was re-growth of the fecal
coliform in the water bodies evaluated? What modeling has been now to predict necessary
disinfection required?
5.
How effective is UV disinfection on viruses? Has UV been used on facilities as
large as the
MWRDGC'streatment plants?
Questions on Prefiled Testimony of Scott Twait
6.
What criteria documents and literature were reviewed for your testimony? If this
literature was reviewed, presumably authoritative and absent consideration
of temperature and
bacteria, what did you based the presumption that temperature and/or bacteria were relevant?
-14-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
7.
What is the most current federal criteria reference standard?
8.
If there is no reliable data, how is the Agency justifying its proposal to require
additional disinfection to discharged wastewater?
Is there any scientific data establishing any
positive results from this additional expenditure?
9.
What specifically is the Agency attempting to accomplish by requiring additional
disinfection?
Is there any other jurisdiction that has similar requirements and historical data?
VI.
Consideration of section 27(a) factors to any discharger other than MWRDGC or
Midwest Generation
Questions to Mr. Suluski
1.
The final paragraph of your testimony (Page 20 ofthe prefiled testimony)
references the economic reasonableness
of the rulemaking proposals. There is no reference here
or in any exhibit to the economic reasonableness
of any of the Agency'sproposals that they
would apply to CITGO Petroleum Corporation and its Lemont Refinery.
Is there any that you
can point out in the testimony? Any in the prefiled exhibits in support
of the petition? Anything
in the petition?
2.
Why has the Agency not included any evidence, either in its Statement of Reasons
or its proposed testimony relating to technical feasibility or economic reasonableness
of the
proposed changes for discharges to the CSSC and Brandon Pool, other than Midwest
Generation? [see Statement
of Reasons, pages 99-100].
3.
Although the Agency states that "the Lower Des Plaines and CSSC in particular
receive discharges from a large number
of significant industrial facilities" [Id page 103], what is
the technical feasibility and economic reasonableness of the proposed changes for those sources?
For industrial sources other than Midwest Generation?
4.
Other than some information on Midwest Generation and the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District
of Greater Chicago, has the Agency developed any information relating to
technical feasibilities or economic reasonableness on any
of the discharges posted in Exhibit TT?
5.
How win the dischargers to esse be affected by the proposed water quality
standards? By the proposed rule 302.407 and 302.41
O?
6.
If "water quality standards" are generally being met, and given the "poor to very
poor" habitat
of the CSSC, which is due to "irreversible conditions," what is the justification, in
terms
of technical feasibility and economic reasonableness, for requiring ZID analysis such as
proposed in 302.41
O?
7.
Has the Agency considered the effects of applying proposed rule 302.407 and
302.410 to dischargers
to the CSSC? What data has been collected?
8.
What are the means by which the Lemont Refinery could meet each of the
proposed water quality standards for its discharge
to the CSSC? What are the technical
feasibility and cost
of those controls?
-15-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
9.
If snow melt conditions cause the CSSC to exceed the proposed water quality
standards, will the Agency prohibit the use
of mixing zones by the Lemont Refinery?
CITGO reserves the right to ask follow-up questions to these and to the responses
provided by the Agency.
Respectfully submitted,
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, and
PDV MIDWEST REFINING,
L.L.c.,
Petitioners
By: One oreMey?
pr
January 18,2008
Jeffrey
C. Fort
Ariel J. Tesher
Sonnenschein Nath
&
Rosenthal LLP
7800 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
14659510
-16-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
SERVICE LIST R08-09
Dorothy Gunn
Dennis Duffield
Marie Tipsord
City
of Joliet
Illinois Pollution Control Board
921 E. Washington St
100 West Randolph St
Joliet, IL 60431
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Frederick Feldman
Keith Harley
Ronald Hill
Elizabeth Schenkier
Louis Kollias
Chicago Legal Clinic, Inc.
Margaret Conway
205 West Monroe Street
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
4
th
Floor
100 East Erie St
Chicago, IL 60606
Chicago, IL 60611
Richard Kissel
Frederick Keady
Roy Harsch
Vermillion Coal Company
DrinkerBiddle
1979 Johns Drive
191 N. Wacker Dr. - Suite 3700
Glenview, IL 60025
Chicago, IL 60606-1698
Claire Manning
Fred Hubbard
Brown Hay
&
Stephens LLP
16 West Madison
700 First Mercantile Bank Bldg
Danville, IL 61834
205
S. Fifth St
Springfield, IL 62705-2459
Deborah Williams
Georgia Vlahos
Stefanie Diers
Naval Training Center
Illinois EPA
2601A Paul Jones St
1021 North Grand Avenue
Great Lakes, IL 60088-2845
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Katherine Hodge
W.C. Blanton
MonicaRios
Blackwell Sanders LLP
Hodge Dwyer Zeman
4801 Main St
3150 Roland Avenue
Suite 1000
Springfield, IL 62705-57776
Kansas City, MO 64112
Charles Wesselhoft
Kay Anderson
James Harrington
American Bottoms
Ross
&
Hardies
One American Bottoms Road
150 N. Michigan Ave
Sauget, IL 62201
Chicago, IL 60601-7567
Robert VanGyseghe
Jack Darin
City
of Geneva
Sierra Club
1800 South St
70 E. Lake St
Geneva, IL 60134-2203
Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60601-7447
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
Jerry Paulsen
Bob Carter
Cindy Skrukrud
Bloomington Normal Water Reclamation
McHenry County Defenders
PO Box 3307
132 Cass Street
Bloomington, IL 61702-3307
Woodstock, IL 60098
Matthew Dunn
Tom Muth
Office
of the Attorney General
Fox Metro Water Reclamation District
Environmental Bureau North
682 State Route
31
69 West Washington Street
Oswego, IL 60543
Suite 1800
Chicago, IL 60602
Albert Ettinger
Kenneth Liss
Freeman Freeman
&
Salzman
Andrews Environmental Engineering
401 N. Michigan Ave
3300 Ginger Creek Drive
Chicago, IL 60611
Springfield, IL 62711
Thomas Granto
Albert Ettinger
Bernard Sawyer
Jessica Dexter
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
Environmental
Law
&
Policy Center
6001 W. Pershing Rd
35
E. Wacker
Cicero, IL 60650-4112
Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60601
Lisa Frede
Vicky McKinley
Chemical Industry Council
of Illinois
Evanston Environmental Board
2250
E. Devon Ave
223 Grey Avenue
Suite 239
Evanston, IL 60202
Des Plaines, IL 60018-4509
Fredric Andes
Marc Miller
Erika Powers
Office
of Lt. Governor Pat Quinn
Barnes
&
Thornburg
Room 214 State House
1 North Wacker
Dr - Suite 4400
Springfield, IL 62706
Chicago, IL 60606
James Daugherty
Susan Franzetti
Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District
Franzetti Law Firm PC
700 West End Avenue
lOS. LaSalle St
Chicago Heights, IL 60411
Suite 3600
Chicago, IL 60603
Sharon Neal
Dr. Thomas Murphy
Commonwealth Edison
2325 N. Clinton
St
125 South Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60614
Chicago, IL 60603
Tracy Elzemeyer
Beth Steinhorn
American Water Company
2021 Timberbrook
727 Craig Road
Springfield, IL 62702
St. Louis,
MO 63141
Margaret Howard
Ann Alexander
Hedinger
Law Office
Natural Resources Defense Council
2601 South Fifth Street
101 N. Wacker Dr - Suite 609
Springfield, IL 62703
Chicago, IL 60606
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
Traci Barkley
Cathy Hudzik
Prairie Rivers Networks
City
of Chicago
1902 Fox Drive
Mayor's Office
of Intergovernmental Affairs
Suite 6
121 N. LaSalle Street
Champaign, IL 61820
City Hall - Room 406
Chicago, IL 60602
James
Huff
Cathy Hudzik
Huff
&
Huff, Inc.
City of Chicago
915 Harger Road
Mayor's Office
of Intergovernmental Affairs
Suite 330
121 N. LaSalle Street
Oak Brook, IL 60523
City Hall - Room 406
Chicago, IL 60602
Irwin Polls
Kevin Desharnais
Ecological Monitoring and Assessment
Thomas Dimond
3206 Maple
Leaf Drive
Thomas Skinner
Glenview, IL 60025
Mayer, Brown LLP
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-4637
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008
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
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED ON
BEHALF OF LEMONT REFINERY OF CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION
via
Standard by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, on January 18,2008.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 18, 2008