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 08-33
(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
Sanjay Sofat, 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 January 22,2008, we filed electronically with the Office
of the
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board the attached Response
to Board Order and
Amendments to Variance Petition,
a copy of which is served upon you.
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION and
PDV MIDWEST REFINING, L.L.C.
By:/tJ~
One of Its Attorneys
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 22, 2008
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 08-33
(Variance - Water)
RESPONSE
TO BOARD ORDER
AND AMENDMENTS
TO
VARIANCE
PETITION
On November 14,2007, CITGO Petroleum Corporation ("CITGO") and PDV Midwest
Refining, L.L.C. ("PDVMR") (collectively, "Petitioners") filed a Petition for Extension
of
Variance ("Petition") with the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board"). On December 20,
2007, the Board issued an order ("Order") directing Petitioners to file an amended petition
providing additional information. In response to that direction, Petitioners file this response.
The Board noted that the amended petition "need not repeat the entire unchanged portion
of the
original filing provided that a sufficient portion
of the original filing is repeated so that the
context
of the amendment is made clear." Order at 4 (quoting 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.226(c)).
Therefore, this Response includes changes to the original Petition in this matter, shown as black-
line changes.
The Board made six inquiries in its Order, four
of which are reflected in the amendments
to paragraphs
of the original petition as noted below. Board inquiry 4 requests a statement in
accordance with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.21O(d)(2), which requires
"a statement that the
1
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 22, 2008
conditions of the prior variance have been fully met ... " Petitioner is unclear what further
statement is required other than "CITGO has undertaken the activities required by the prior
variance." That statement was included precisely to meet 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.2IO(d)(2).
Other information included in the Petition support that conclusion, including reporting of the
sample results taken at the I-55 Bridge. See Petition at
~13-17
and Exhibit D.
In response to Board Inquiry 5, an appropriate Motion to Incorporate is filed
contemporaneously with this Response to Board Order.
An
additional affidavit of Brigitte
Postel, in support of this Response and Amended Petition, is also attached.
PARAGRAPH 2
[In response to Board inquiry 6, the end of Paragraph 2 in the Petition shall be amended as
follows:]
2.
These adjusted dates are requested so as to avoid unnecessary activities. The
proposed 5-year variance has the effect
of moving 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.
PARAGRAPH 17
[In response to Board Inquiry
1, Paragraph 17 in the Petition shall be amended as follows:]
2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 22, 2008
17.
Under the Consent Decree, CITGO will install installed a wet gas scrubber in the
Fluid Catalytic Converter ("FCC") unit at the Refinery to remove sulfur dioxide air emissions.
At the time the prior variance was filed, the Refinery projected that it would be complete and
operational in August 2006 (See Ex 3 in PCB
05-85), That schedule assumed that the Consent
Decree (see Ex 1 in PCB 05-85) schedule required the WGS to come
on line either when a
turnaround
of the FCC unit was completed (then scheduled for later in 2006) or by December
2007. Further discussions resulted in the conclusion that December 2007 was the critical date
under the Consent Decree. As a result. the schedule for the WGS as well as the increased
discharge from the WGS to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal were deferred. The WGS
began discharging in October. 2007. The WGS is undergoing start up and optimization
activities.
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
willlimit~
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.! CITGO is monitoring the discharge as optimization continues for the new equipment.
PARAGRAPH 24
[In response to Board Inquiry 2, Paragraph 24 of the Petition shall be amended as follows:]
!
Assumes all sodium salts.
3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 22, 2008
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
'liouid appear that
The results
of sampling conducted in December, after the discharge from the WGS began. are
included in Exhibit E. Based on these data 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 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. The significant difference that has occurred is the Board'sadoption,
earlier this year. of a new seasonal water quality standard of 1.686 mg!l for TDS for General Use
waters below the I-55 Bridge. Adding in the Exxon-Mobil increased discharge, in combination
with the increased CITGO discharge, the maximum additional TDS levels at the I-55 bridge
iswas projected to be 72 mg!I.
See
Petition,
~26
in R 06-24 (February 7.2006), But the data
shows that the maximum TDS levels in December. 2007 were the same as recorded before the
WGS discharge began. The difference between the observed sampling information for TDS and
the applicable water quality standard today (even before the Board takes final action in R 07-09)
is so large that it does not appear likely that the General Use water quality standard as adopted
for the Des Plains River downstream of the I-55 Bridge in the proceeding initiated by Exxon-
Mobil will be a relevant factor.
Of course, ifthe Board proceeds to remove the TDS standard for
all General Use waters. sampling at the I-55 Bridge will not be relevant. Moreover. the Agency
4
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 22, 2008
has now proposed to remove TDS as a standard for Secondary Contact waters. including the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Since we cannot predict when or
how the Board may rule on
that issue. this Petition has confined itselfto the regulations now in effect and is requesting that
the focus be moved to the conditions in the Ship Canal upstream of the Refinery. where
occasional exceedances of the existing TDS standard exist.
PARAGRAPH 25
[In response to Board Inquiry 3, Paragraph
25 of the Petition shall be amended as follows:]
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
05-9~5.
At
the time of the prior variance. the available data on TDS levels in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal and at the I-55 Bridge were those data being collected by the Metropolitan Wastewater
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. Those data were included in the prior variance
proceeding. Based on that data. the Refinery did not expect the duration of elevated TDS levels
to last for such a long period
of time.
It
is also believed that the TDS regulations would be
eliminated. and hence that measures such as wastewater storage would not be required.
However. the most recent data collected purusant to the 2005 Variance for the Refinery indicates
that elevated TDS levels could still extend over a couple
of weeks due to snowmelt conditions.
See Petition. Exhibit D. The Refinery maximum permitted discharge is 5.79 MGD. The
5
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 22, 2008
quantity of tankage needed to store that volume of wastewater would be substantial (perhaps 100
million gallons for a 20-day period, assuming this period oftime is a worst case scenario).
However, at the present time, CITGO is not asking for a change in the final compliance measures
- should any such measures be required. If the continued monitoring of the Ship Canal (as
suggested by this Petition) continues to indicate that elevated TDS levels last for a couple
of
weeks at a time, and if the Board does not remove the TDS standard in the Ship Canal. CITGO
may seek further relief from the Board - including a change to the existing compliance plan.
WHEREFORE, CITGO requests that this Petition for Extension
of Variance as amended
herein be granted.
CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORA
nON and
PDV MIDWEST REFINING, L.L.C.
By:
--LM_-_r_'<d_'-
~_-_,-_."
_"
_
One of Its Attorneys
Dated: January
22,2008
Jeffrey C. Fort
Ariel J. Tesher
Sonnenschein Nath
&
Rosenthal LLP
7800 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
12354543
6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 22, 2008
STATE OF n..LINOIS
)
)
SS.
COUNTY OF COOK
)
BEFORE
THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OF
THE STATE OF n..LINOIS
IN THE MATIER OF:
CITOO PETROLEUM CORPORA
nON and
PDV MIDWEST REFINING, L.L.C.,
Petitioners,
v.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 08-33
(Variance - Water)
Mfidavit 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 Corpvration
("CITGO")
for the past
four (4) years. I have worked at the Lemont Refinery since October, 2003. At Lemont Refinery,
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 Response to Board Order dated
January~a.,
2008, and, based upon
my personal knowledge and belief, the facts stated therein are true and correct.
FURTHER AFFIANT
SAYETH NOT.
·-~A.\i~
V~
Subscribed
an~~worn
to me
before
this.P "day of
January _, 2008
~~.
'0
Notary Public
~
12361220
•••••••................. :
:
"OFFICIAL SEAL"
:
:
ROSE MIGLIO .' •
•
Notary Public, State at
1!IInOIS
:
: My Commission Expires 3/29/08 :
:
........•...............
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 22, 2008
Exhibit E
DES PLAINES RIVER TDS SAMPLING,
I-55 Bridge
Date
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/L
11/26/2007
440
11/28/2007
440
11/30/2007
480
12/3/2007
500
12/5/2007
560
12/7/2007
790
12/10/2007
830
12/12/2007
1300
12/14/2007
1000
12/17/2007
1300
12/19/2007
1200
12/21/2007
1200
12/24/2007
1200
12/26/2007
1300
12/28/2007
1300
12/31/2007
1100
Average
934
Maximum
1300
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 22, 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 this
Response to Board Order and
Amendments
to Variance Petition
by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, on January 22,2008.
12354543
7
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 22, 2008
