JUN-20-2008 16:51
?
DLC LEGRL
?
P.02
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
AMMONIA NITROGEN DISCHARGE LEVELS AT
35 III. Adm. Code 304.122 FOR CITGO PETROLEUM
AND PDV MIDWEST REFINING, L.L.C.
ORWLiNAL
NOTICE OF FILING
AS 2008-008
R EC EIVED
(Adjusted Standard)
CLERK'S OFFICE
I! PI 2 3 2008
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
)ifitution Control
Board
TO:
John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center, Suit 11-500
100 W. Randolph
Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218
Bradley P. Halloran, Hearing
Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center, Suit 11-500
100 W. Randolph
Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218
Jeffery C. Fort
Arid J. Tesher
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
233 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
Bill Richardson,
General Counsel
Department of Natural Resources
One
Natural
Resources
Way
Springfield,
Illinois 62702-1271
Matthew J. Dunn
Division Chief, Environmental
Enforcement
Illinois
Attorney General
100 W. Randolph Street, 12
th
Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
Pollution Control Board the attached
AGENCY'S RECOMMENDATION
of the
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, a copy of which is herewith served upon you.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BY:
Sanjay K. Sofat, Assistant Counsel
Dated: June 20, 2008
1021 N. Grand Ave. East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
JUN-20-2008 16
:
51
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P.03
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARill EC EIVED
CLERKS OFFICE
n;
1/?
JUN 2 3 2008
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM
AS 2008-008
AMMONIA NITROGEN DISCHARGE LEVELS AT
(Adjusted Standard)
35 III. Adm. Code 304.122 FOR CITGO PETROLEUM
AND PDV MIDWEST REFINING, L.L.C.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
NOW COMES the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA" or
"Agency") by one of its attorneys, Sanjay K. Sofat, in response to the Petition for adjusted
standard of CITGO Petroleum Corporation and PDV Midwest Refining, LLC (Hereafter,
referred to jointly as "CITGO" or "Petitioner") from 35 111. Adm. Code 304.122(b) and pursuant
to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.416, hereby recommends that the Pollution Control Board ("IPCB" or
"Board") DENY CITGO's request, as outlined in the petition. Specifically, the Agency
recommends that the Board deny CITGO's request because it has not met its burden under
Section 28.1(c) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act ("Act") and the Board regulations.
In support of its recommendation, the Illinois EPA states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1.
On March 18, 2008, CITGO filed an adjusted standard petition with the Board
seeking relief from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.122, which requires that ammonia nitrogen discharges
into the Chicago River System be limited to 3 milligrams per liter ("mg/L")
as a
monthly
IN THE MATTER OF:
JUN-20-2006 16
:
51
?
DLC LEGRL
?
P.04
average. Section 304.122 of the Board regulations applies to the CITGO's discharge from the
petroleum refinery located at 135th Street and New Avenue in Lemont, Will County, Illinois.
2.
On April 3, 2008, CITGO filed a Certificate of Publication with the Board
pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/28.1(d)(2006) and 35 III. Adm. Code 104.408 and 104.410 certifying
that notice of its adjusted standard petition was published in the GateHouse Media Suburban
Newspapers in Lemont on March 21, 2008.
3.
Illinois EPA is required to file a Recommendation with the Board within 45 days
of the filing of a petition for adjusted standard or within 30 days before a scheduled hearing date,
whichever occurs earlier.
See
35 III. Adm. Code 104.416.
4.
On May 7, 2008, the Illinois EPA filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File
Recommendation requesting extension of the deadline to file its recommendation by 30 days.
The Board granted this request on May 15, 2008.
5.
On May 30, 2008, the Illinois EPA filed another Motion for Extension of Time to
File the Agency's Recommendation requesting additional 14 days to file. In a June 3, 2008
order, the Hearing Officer granted the Illinois EPA's request for additional time to file its
recommendation.
II. STATEMENT OF STAND41D OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
FROM WHICH PETITIONER SEEKS AN ADJUSTED STANDARD
6.
Petitioner has requested an adjusted standard from 35 III. Adm. Code 304.122(b),
limiting ammonia effluent for large dischargers to specified water bodies, including the Illinois
River. The requirements of ammonia effluent limitations contained in Section 304.122 provide
as follows:
2
JUN-20-2008 16
:
52
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P . 05
Section 304.122 Total Ammonia Nitrogen (as N: STORET number 00610)
a)
No effluent from any source which discharges to the Illinois River, the Des Plaines River
downstream of its confluence with the Chicago River System or the Calumet River
System, and whose untreated waste load is 50,000 or more population equivalents shall
contain more than 2.5 mg/L of total ammonia nitrogen as N during the months of April
through October, or 4 mg/L at other times.
b)
Sources discharging to any of the above waters and whose untreated waste load cannot be
computed on a population equivalent basis comparable to that used for municipal waste
treatment plants and whose total ammonia nitrogen as N discharge exceeds 45.4 kg/day
(100 pounds per day) shall not discharge an effluent of more than 3.0 mg/L of total
ammonia nitrogen as N.
c)
In addition to the effluent standards set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of this Section, all
sources are subject to Section 304.105
(Source: Amended at 26 Ill. Reg. 16948, effective November 8, 2002)
7.
On December 17, 1998,
the Board granted CITGO a site specific rule regarding
total nitrogen ammonia in the Petitioner's discharge. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.213. This rule
requires CITGO to meet ammonia nitrogen limits of 9.4 mg/L as a monthly average and 26.0
mg/L as a daily maximum. This rule also requires CITGO to meet the Best Available
Technology Economically Available (BAT) limitations. 35 III. Adm. Code 304.213;
see
40
C.F.R. 419.23(1992)1.
III. IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL LAW
8.
The effluent standards of 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 304 were adopted by the Board
to implement, in part, the water quality standards of Section 303(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. §1313(a), and the Illinois water quality standards of 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 302.
The US EPA BAT model is based on a wastewater treatment plant that includes the following treatment process:
0 flow equalization; ii) Initial oil and solids removal (API separator or baffle plate separator); iii) Additional
oil/solids removal (clarifiers or dissolved air flotation); iv) Biological treatment; and v) Filtration or other final
polishing steps. SOURCE??. The BAT limitations are based on the best available technology at the time
regulations were written. These regulations do not take into account treatment technology improvements or
use
of
lower
grade
crude feedstocks.
3
JUN-20-2006 16:52
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P. 06
IV.
NATURE OF PETITIONER'S
ACTIVITY
9.
CITGO operates a petroleum refinery near Lemont, Illinois that was formerly
owned by UNO-VEN. On May 1, 1997, PDV Midwest Refining L.L.C., purchased Lemont
refinery from UNO-VEN and contracted with CITGO to operate the refinery.
Petition at 1-2;
Technical Report at I.
CITGO's discharge of ammonia nitrogen into the Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal ("Ship Canal") is permitted pursuant to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System ("NDPES") permit No. 1L0001589.
Petition at 6.
The permit limits for ammonia
nitrogen are consistent with the current site specific rule at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.213, 9.4 mg/L
as a monthly average and 26.0 mg/L as a daily maximum. CITGO's NPDES permit was
modified by the Agency on June 22, 2007, and will expire on July 31, 2011.
Id.
10.
The Lemont refinery was constructed in 1967 through 1970. According to the
Petitioner, the maximum daily production at this facility is approximately 168,000 barrels per
day.
Petition at 5.
CITGO refines both domestic and foreign crude oil to produce gasoline,
kerosene, home heating oil, aviation fuel, diesel oil, petrochemical solvents, and petroleum coke.
Petition at 5, Technical Report at 3.
11.
Both the crude oil and the Ship Canal have experienced declining trends in
ammonia concentrations. The most recent data presented by CITGO shows that the nitrogen
content of the crude oil has declined by 10 percent from the levels seen in the late 1990's and
early 2000's.
Technical Report at 3.
The average ammonia concentration in the intake has also
declined since 1999.
Technical Report, Figure 3-3, at 13.
According to the data collected in
2006, the average concentration of ammonia in the Canal is 0.7 mg/L.
Technical Report at 13.
12.
The original design of the CITGO's wastewater treatment plant included two oil-
water separators, a flow equalization tank, a primary clarifier, activated sludge system, and a
4
JUN-20-2008 16:52
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P.07
polishing pond prior to discharge.
Petition at 6.
The amount of ammonia nitrogen present in a
wastewater facility's effluent depends on several factors including nitrogen content in the crude
oil, crude oil throughput, influent HODS, TSS, and oil loadings, and degree of nitrification being
achieved in the wastewater treatment plant.
Petition at. 10.
The four sour water strippers used
by CITGO to remove ammonia from the process wastewater achieve an average of 95% to
96.8% of removal efficiencies.
Petition at 3, Technical Report at 12.
13.
The Petitioner provides a list of improvements of upgrades that have been made
to the wastewater collection and treatment system since 1987.
Petition at 13-14.
However, not
all of CITGO's listed improvements or upgrades were installed to remove ammonia. Some of
these improvements, such as sour water stripping and nitrifier inhibition testing, were made for
ammonia removal. However, the addition of a second clarifier, an induced gas flotation system,
and clean closure of a stormwater basin appear not to be directly related to ammonia removal.
Other modifications such as aeration improvements and control and chemical feed improvements
can have multiple benefits. CITGO's installation of the Purge Treatment Unit is also unrelated
to historic ammonia removal issues as it was installed specifically to treat wastewater from the
new FCC scrubber. Thus, the Petitioner's claim that CITGO and its predecessors have spent •
nearly $75,000,000 to upgrade and improve the wastewater treatment facilities is not directly
related to removal of ammonia nitrogen from the effluent.
Petition at 4.
It is not unusual for
facilities to upgrade wastewater treatment facilities to replace aging systems or to account for
new wastestreams present in the effluent. Although CITGO claims that more than $45,000,000
has been spent in the last ten years on capital projects related to ammonia control and reduction,
it does not explain exactly which projects were included in the capital project total. Also,
5
JUN-20-200B 16
1 53
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P . 08
CITGO does not sufficiently define how each project was designed to improve ammonia
removal.
V.
GENERAL LEVEL OF JUSTIFICATION REQUIRED
14.
The regulation of general applicability at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.122 does not
specify a level of justification or other requirements necessary for this type of adjusted standard.
Accordingly, the general level of justification provided in Section 28.1 of the Act is applicable
here. That subsection provides:
[T]he Board may grant individual adjusted standards whenever the
Board determines, upon adequate proof by petitioner, that:
I)
factors relating to that petitioner are substantially and significantly
different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the
general regulation applicable to that petitioner;
2) the existence of those factors justifies an adjusted standard;
3)
the requested standard will not result in environmental or health
effects substantially and significantly more adverse than the effects
considered by the Board in adopting the rule of general applicability; and
4)
the adjusted standard is consistent with any applicable federal law.
415 ILCS 5/28.1(c) (2006);
See also
35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 104.426.
For the reasons outlined below, the Illinois EPA asserts that the Petitioner has failed to
satisfy the burden of proof specified in Section 28.1(c) of the Act:
A. FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FACTORS
15.
CITGO must prove that the "factors relating to the petitioner are substantially
different from the factors relied upon by the Board in adopting the general regulations."
See
415
ILCS 5/28.1(c). When first adopted by the Board, the provisions at issue in this proceeding were
6
JUN-20-2008 16
:
53?
DLC LEGAL
?
P.09
codified as Rule 406. On January 6, 1972, the Board adopted the language currently in Section
304.122(a) in the combined dockets of R70-8, R7I -14, and R71-20. There was extensive
testimony as to the availability of methods for reducing ammonia in effluents. It was determined
that nitrification can be satisfactorily accomplished for a reasonable price by a second stage of
biological treatment.
Id. at
3-406. The Board concluded that,
[T]he evidence is clear that for too long the oxygen demand exerted by ammonia
in domestic wastes has been over-looked in the emphasis on reduction of five day
BOD. The State Water Survey has conclusively shown that reduction of
ammonia from larger sources feeding the Illinois River is necessary if existing
standards for dissolved oxygen, essential to adequate fish population, are to be
met.
Id.
at 3-406.
In 1973, the Board adopted the language currently found in Section 304.122(b), from which
CITGO seeks relief, In
In the Matter ofEffluent Criteria, (SWB-14), R70-8, R71-14, R71-20,
(January 6, 1972).
This rule requires sources discharging to any of the water listed in Rule 406
and having an untreated waste load that could not be computed on a population equivalent basis
and discharging ammonia nitrogen in excess of 100 pounds per day, could not discharge an
effluent containing more than 3.0 mg/L of ammonia nitrogen after December 31, 1974.
Id.
The
Board's basic intent in adopting the effluent requirements in the above-mentioned rulemaking
was to provide a uniform baseline of treatment technology to be employed by all facilities
discharging into waters of the State. At this point, CITGO is the only oil refinery discharging to
the Ship Canal that has yet to meet the ammonia nitrogen standard at 35 Ill. Adm. Code
304.122(b).
16.
CITGO identifies several factors that they believe are substantially and
significantly different from the factors relied on by the Board in adopting the ammonia nitrogen
standard. Specifically, CITGO cites to the Board's previous adjusted standard proceedings and
claims "the Board has already found the situation to be unique and site specific relief."
See e.g.,
7
JUN-20-2008 16:53
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P.10
In the Matter of Petition of UNO-VEN,
R93-8, Opinion and Order of the Board (December 16,
1993),
In the Matter of Petition of PDV Midwest Refining, LLC,
R98-14, Opinion and Order of
the Board (December 17, 1998). The Board made no such specific findings in these Board
opinions. While the Board has granted CITGO relief from the ammonia nitrogen standard in the
past, the focus was on requiring the Lemont Refinery "... to make continued efforts to reduce the
ammonia nitrogen concentrations in its wastewater."
R98-14 at
4.
17.
CITGO also claims that the Board did not consider the costs of treatment for
ammonia in a refinery wastewater discharge.
Petition at 19.
Contrary to CITGO's assertions,
the Board did consider the cost of ammonia treatment to be reasonable. Specifically, the Board
was "convinced that nitrification can be satisfactorily accomplished for a reasonable price...."
In
the Matter of Effluent Criteria, (SWB-14), R70-8, R7I-14, R71-20, (January 6, 1972) at 3-406.
18.
CITGO further claims that the discharge from the refinery does not pose any
threat to human health or the environment and is not significantly greater than the environmental
impact that the Board was trying to control when it adopted the ammonia nitrogen rule. Since
Section 304.122(b) is a technology based standard, not a water quality standard, CITGO's
assertion is irrelevant to the issue at hand as there exist removal technologies that are
economically reasonable and technically feasible.
19.
CITGO contracted with AWARE Environmental Inc. ("AWARE") to prepare a
report Technical Review of Ammonia Treatment at the Wastewater Treatment Plant- CITGO
Petroleum Corporation, Lemont Refinery, which evaluates the current conditions at the refinery.
In this report, AWARE also describes the wastewater practices at the three other oil refineries in
Illinois: Conoco-Phillips, Roxana, IL; Exxon-Mobil, Joliet, IL; and Marathon, Robinson, IL .
CITGO opines that while there are no treatment technology differences between the refinery and
8
JUN-20-2002 16:53
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P.11
other refineries in Illinois, there are however differences in specific design details.
Petition at
19. With the
exception of CITGO, the remaining three oil refineries in Illinois are capable of
meeting the ammonia nitrogen limits required in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.122(b). Marathon Oil
Refinery has permit limits requiring lower, water quality standard based limits, which it regularly
meets. Conoco-Phillips Refinery does not have water quality based limits due to its location on
the Mississippi River, however, nitrification is known to occur on a regular basis given the
ammonia levels measured in the effluent and the results of whole effluent toxicity testing.
20.
All refineries have preliminary oil separation followed by an additional oil-water
separator using a gas flotation process. The biological treatment is activated sludge. According
to CITGO, the operating parameters such as sludge age, food-to-microorganism ratio, aeration
levels, pH, and temperature are all within appropriate ranges to provide nitrification, yet it cannot
meet the ammonia nitrogen standard. It seems to the Agency that CITGO needs to investigate
whether its equipment is properly sized and operated for the current needs of the facility.
Neither the petition nor the supporting documents address the adequacy of residence time in the
aeration basins to ensure that consistent nitrification is occurring.
Table 4-6 of the CITGO's technical review document compares the detention times of the
activated sludge treatment processes at each Illinois refinery.
AWARE at .58.
CITGO's
wastewater treatment plant aeration basins have the lowest detention time of the four refineries in
Illinois. The detention time in CITGO's aeration basin is shown as 7.7 hours (0.32 days)
as
compared with Exxon-Mobil at 10.9 (0.45 days). The table also shows that Exxon-Mobil is
upgrading their system which will result in a detention time of 19.4 hours (0.81 days).
Id.
Additionally, the detention time for Conoco-Phillips and Marathon are 1.31 days and 1.54 days
respectively. These longer detention times may be at least partially responsible for the more
9
JUN-20-2008 16:54
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P.12
effective and more consistent nitrification achieved at these facilities. While various options for
increasing the biological treatment capacity of the treatment facility were considered, CITGO did
not consider the construction of an additional aeration basin and/or an associated additional
clarifier to provide a longer detention time, more in line with other refineries.
21.
ExxonMobil is subject to the same Section 304.122(b) limits as CITGO and had
previously received the Board relief as has CITGO. ExxonMobil is now forgoing further Board
relief and will have the Section 304.122(b) dictated permit limits in their next renewed permit.
ExxonMobil, which processes roughly 245,000 barrels per day, notified the Agency in an April
28, 2008 letter that it will meet the lower 3mg/L and 6 mg/L effluent limits.
See
Attachment 1.
The facility which specializes in heavy sour crude primarily from Canada, but also from the U.S.
Gulf, discharges 4.32 MGD of treated process wastewater and 10.47 MGD of non-contact
cooling water to the Des Plaines River. The treatment system consists of two API separators and
air flotation units for oil and solids removal, activated sludge and clarification for biological
treatment, and 4.9 MG polishing pond for tertiary treatment. On March 19, 2007, Illinois EPA
issued a state construction permit (2007-EN-2703) to Exxon-Mobil.
See
Attachment 2. This
construction permit allows the construction of additional clarifiers in an amount to add 6,400
square feet of surface area, to work in parallel with their existing treatment plant, to give a total
surface area of 16,453 square feet. This will result in a detention time of roughly 19 hours and
262 GPD/square feet of clarifier overflow. While it not clearly stated in the AWARE report,
Exxon-Mobil's upgrade may be at least partially responsible for meeting the applicable ammonia
limits.
22.
CITGO also references that it is having difficulty maintaining adequate
nitrification because of a higher percentage of heavy crude in recent years.
Petition at 3,
10
JUN-20-2006 16:54
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P.13
AWARE 30, 33.
The Illinois EPA does not consider the uncertainty associated with the crude to
be of any notable significance. CITGO is receiving its crude supply from the same pipeline
system that feeds to other refineries in Illinois. Based on the information provided by other
refineries, it is clear that other facilities have or are making changes to process higher amounts of
heavy crude. Further, these refineries have no difficulty meeting the applicable ammonia
limitations.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
24. CITGO claims that granting adjusted standard relief from Section 304.122 will
not result in any adverse environmental impacts.
Petition at 6.
CITGO further claims that the
ammonia water quality standard will be met at the edge of the mixing zone. The Illinois EPA
disagrees that the relief from the ammonia nitrogen standard would not have any adverse
environmental impacts. By seeking a relief from Section 304.122 ammonia standard, CITGO is
subjecting a portion of the Ship Canal to experience much higher ammonia concentrations, 6.9
mg/L
as
a monthly average and 10.61 mg/L as a daily average. As ammonia is a toxic substance,
aquatic life will not inhabit affected areas where the effluent mixes with the receiving water.
The Ship Canal will thus have an area that is effectively unavailable
as
habitat for sensitive
forms of aquatic life. Requiring CITGO to meet the Section 304.122 ammonia standard would
not only reduce the area currently unavailable for aquatic life, but also help to improve the
dissolved oxygen conditions in the Ship Canal.
11
JUN-20-2008 16154
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P.14
C. CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW
25.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires the Illinois EPA to identify water
quality limited waters (also called impaired waters), the pollutants causing impairment to those
waters, a priority ranking for the development of Total Maximum Daily Load ("TMDL
2"). 33
U.S.C. § 1313(d). According to the Agency's Illinois Water Quality Report 2006, the Ship Canal
is impaired for indigenous aquatic life use with dissolved oxygen as a cause. Other causes of
impairment are: polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) iron, oil, grease, total nitrogen, and total
phosphorus. The federal regulations require states to conduct a TMDL for pollutants causing
impairment.
See
40 C.F.R. 130.7. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a
pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards. Thus, a TMDL is
the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing sources.
Id.
Also, the
federal regulations require that a TMDL "shall be established for all pollutants preventing or
expected to prevent attainment of water quality standards."
See
40 C.F.R. 130.7(c). Although
ammonia nitrogen is not one of the listed causes, it has a direct impact on the dissolved oxygen
levels in the Ship Canal. Ammonia is an oxygen demanding substance. As a result, discharge of
higher ammonia by CITGO will remove more dissolved oxygen from the Ship Canal. For a
waterbody that is already listed
as
impaired for the dissolved oxygen water quality standard,
adding higher ammonia discharge levels would only further prevent attainment of dissolved
oxygen standard. This would be in a direct conflict with the mandates of the Clean Water Act.
Requiring CITGO to reduce the ammonia to levels required by Section 304.122 would ensure
that a source of oxygen demanding waste to the Ship Canal has been eliminated.
12
JUN-20-2008 16
:
55
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P.15
VI. ADDITIONAL JUSTIFICATION FACTORS
26.
The Board regulation at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.426 requires the Board to review
Petitioner's justification for an adjusted standard consistent with Section 27(a) of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/27(a)(2006). This Section requires the Board to take into account five specified factors
when promulgating regulations, including adjusted standards: i) the existing physical conditions;
ii) the character of the area involved including surrounding land use; iii) zoning classifications;
iv) nature of the receiving water body; and v) the technical feasibility and economic
reasonableness of measuring or reducing the particular type of pollution. As explained below, it
is the Illinois EPA's conclusion that CITGO has not satisfactorily proven the necessity of
continued relief.
A. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
27.
CITGO's outfall is located at river mile 296.5 on the Ship Canal, 5.5 miles
upstream of the Lockport Lock and Dam. The receiving waterway has a 7-day, 10- year low
flow ('7Q10") is 850 MGD or 1315 cubic feet per second ("cfs").
Petition at 7.
In addition to
CITGO's discharge, three major water reclamation plants, combined sewer overflows, non–point
source runoff, and industrial charges also discharge to the Ship Canal.
Petition at 5.
The
existing water quality conditions with respect to ammonia and dissolved oxygen have been
monitored by the Illinois EPA, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(MWRDGC), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and Midwest Generation, LLC.
B. CHARACTER OF THE AREA INVOLVED, INCLUDING SURROUNDING LAND USES
2
A TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a
pollutant from all
contributing point and nonpoint sources. The
calculation must include
a margin of safety
to ensure
that the
waterbody can be used for the purposes the State has
designated. The calculation must also account for
seasonal variation in water quality.
13
JUN-20-2006 16:55
?
DLC LEGRL
?
P.16
28.
Petitioner did not provide any information regarding the area involved or the
surrounding land uses for this requested relief.
C. ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS
29.
Petitioner did not provide any information regarding the zoning classifications for
this requested relief. The Agency believes that the Lemont Refinery is located in a zoning area
classified as Industrial use.
D. NATURE OF THE RECEIVING BODY
30.
Under Title 35: Environmental Protection; Subtitle C: Water Pollution, Chapter I:
Pollution Control Board; Part 303; Subpart C, the Ship Canal is classified
as a
Secondary
Contact water. The Chicago Waterway is designated as a Secondary Contact water up to the Des
Plaines River at the 1-55 Bridge. Below the 1-55 Bridge , the Des Plaines River is designated as
General Use water. The General Use waters begin 18.5 miles below the CITGO's outfall.
Petition at 7.
The water quality standards for un-ionized ammonia and dissolve oxygen are 0.1
mg/L (maximum) and 4.0 mg/L (minimum), respectively. However, the Agency has proposed to
amend the water quality standards applicable to the Ship Canal.
See
R 08-09. Under this
proposal, the Agency is amending the ammonia water quality standard to be similar to the
General Use ammonia water quality standard.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.212(e). Recently, the
Agency has assessed the overall Ship Canal as non supportive for fish consumption and aquatic
life, based on polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) iron, oil, grease, D.O., total nitrogen, and total
phosphorus.
See
Illinois Water Quality Report 2006.
14
JUN-20-2:308 16:55
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P.17
E. TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS
31.
The Petitioner considered the following four removal technologies: 1) Activated
sludge with powdered activated carbon addition (PACT); 2) Activated sludge with a fixed media
system; 3) Activated sludge with membrane bioreactor; and 4) Activated sludge with breakpoint
chlorination and dechlorination.
AWARE at 41.
32.
Activated sludge with powdered activated carbon addition: The annualized cost
for this alternative is $3,630,000 per year, assuming a capital recovery factor for 10 years at 8
percent interest.
AWARE at 46
The cost estimate includes facilities for carbon regeneration and
sludge disposal. The AWARE report outlines some concerns regarding the use of this
technology.
AWARE at 46.
AWARE notes that powdered activated carbon process can improve
biological nitrification, yet it concludes that this alternative cannot assure compliance with the 3
mg/L ammonia nitrogen criteria.
Id.
33.
Activated sludge with a fixed media system: The total annual cost for this option
is $3,220,000 per year.
AWARE at 47.
Aside from the cost estimates, AWARE raises two
concerns for this alternative: i) the sensitivity of the nitrifiers, and ii) chemical incompatibility.
Petition at 17.
34.
Activated sludge with membrane bioreactor: The annual operating cost for this
removal technology is $3,280,000. The total annualized cost for the membrane bioreactor
alternative is $11,400,000.
AWARE at 50.
AWARE identifies several concerns with this
alternative, including limited data on MBR systems for biological nitrification applications in the
refining industry, full scale MBR systems have experienced problems with foaming and fouling
of membranes, and the resulting expensive cleaning and replacement operations.
Id.
15
JUN-20-200e 16
:
55
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P.18
35.
Activated sludge with breakpoint chlorination and dechlorination: The estimated
annualized cost for the chlorination/dechlorination system is $3,640,000.
AWARE at 56.
The
main concerns with this alternative are: chlorine as well chlorinated organic by-products are
generally toxic to fish as well as harmful to aquatic biota even at low concentrations.
36.
AWARE concludes that the least expensive alternative is fixed media biological
treatment unit. Although conceding that by upgrading the treatment plant with additional
treatment steps, such as a fixed media biological treatment unit, additional ammonia removal may
be achieved, AWARE ultimately concludes that it is uncertain whether upgrading the system with
achieve consistent compliance with the 3.0 mg/L ammonia nitrogen standard.
AWARE at 59.
37.
Instead of pursuing one of the removal technologies outlined in the AWARE
report, CITGO continues to believe that the ongoing optimization program at the Lemont
Refinery is a better option to improve ammonia nitrogen removal.
AWARE at 59.
In essence,
CITGO argues that even though there is a least expensive option available, it is not worth
pursuing because there is an uncertainty regarding whether consistent compliance with the
ammonia nitrogen standard can be achieved. CITGO thus claims that "there are no alternatives
that are both technologically feasible and economically reasonable to achieve the ammonia
reduction necessary to comply with 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.122(b)."
Petition at 16.
The Agency
disagrees with CITGO's claim because other refineries in Illinois have been able to successfully
apply these removal technologies to ensure consistent compliance with the ammonia nitrogen
standard. The information provided by CITGO does not show that what is economically
reasonable and technically feasible at other refineries in Illinois, is economically unreasonable
and technically infeasible for the Lemont Refinery.
•
16
JUN-20-2008 16:56
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P.19
38.
The limited nature of the economical analysis and marginal concerns makes it
hard for the Agency to agree with CITGO's conclusion that the removal technologies are
technically infeasible and economically unreasonable. The Agency believes that a serious look
at these options would allow CITGO to select a technology that is not only economical but also
is capable of ensuring consistent compliance with the ammonia nitrogen standard.
39.
The requested relief focuses on monitoring the nitrogen content of the feedstock,
to "continue it's efforts" to reduce ammonia, and to control and manage solids from it's crude oil
supply.
Petition at 1 I.
CITGO fails to describe the nature of these efforts and the potential
reductions in ammonia to the Ship Canal. To achieve compliance with the ammonia nitrogen
standard, CITGO needs to do more than just monitor the nitrogen content of the feedstock.
Along with considering removal technologies, CITGO should also focus on the performance
efficiencies of its biological treatment process, and improvements to the solids handling process
and the desalter. Instead of continuing to speculate on what might potentially work or not work
at the Lemont Refinery, CITGO should perhaps duplicate technology designs of one of the other
refineries, such as Exxon-Mobil, so that it can also comply with the applicable standard.
VII.
HEARING
40.
Pursuant to 35 III. Adm. Code §104.406(j), CITGO requests a hearing in this
matter.
VIII. RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION
41.
The Petitioner has the burden of proof in an adjusted standard proceeding.
See
35
Ill. Adm. Code 104.206. Petitioner must also justify their adjusted standard request consistent
17
JUN-20-2000 16 56
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P . 20
with the requirements of Section 27(a) of the Act. Pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/28.1 and consistent
with 415 ILCS 5/27(a), the Agency recommends that Petitioner's, request for relief from effluent
limitations concerning total ammonia nitrogen be DENIED.
The Part 304 effluent standards are the absolute minimum standards for point sources
from which a relief should only be granted in rare and most extraordinary circumstances. In the
past, the Board cautioned the regulated community that the Board will rarely grant relief from
Part 304 standards.
In the Matter of: Petition for Site Specific Exception to Effluent Standards
for the Illinois American Water Company, East St-Louis Treatment Plant,
R85-11, slip op at 11,
February 2, 1989.
For thirty-one (31) years, or five variances and five adjusted standards later, Petitioner is
essentially at the same place where they started in 1977—CITGO proposes to continue to
monitor the nitrogen content and to "continue it's efforts" to reduce ammonia and to control and
manage solids from it's crude supply.
Petition at 11.
CITGO has not established that factors
relating to its Lemont refinery are substantially and significantly different from the other refinery
located on the same discharge waterway. In fact, Exxon Mobil, a similarly situated oil refinery
discharging to the Ship Canal, has updated its facilities in an effort to meet the ammonia nitrogen
standard, rather than seeking continuation of its relief from the Board. The Petitioner has failed
to demonstrate that the rule of general applicability is technically infeasible and economically
unreasonable when applied to the Petitioner's facility. Consequently, CITGO's requested relief
does not meet the requirements established under 35 Ill. Adm. Code Section 104.426 as well as
Sections 27(a) and 28.1 of the Act. Therefore, the Agency urges the Board to deny the
Petitioner's request for extending this relief.
18
JUN-20-2008 16:56
?
DLC LEGAL
P.21
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, the Illinois EPA recommends that the
Pollution Control Board DENY the adjusted standard Petition of CITGO.
Respectfully Submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
BY:
Sanjay K. Sofat
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
DATED: June 20, 2008
1021 N. Grand Ave. East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
sanjay.sofat@illinois.gov
19
JUN-20-2008 16:56?DLC LEGAL
?
P.22
ATTACHMENT
1
SAK:MEL:270306.wpd
DIVISION OF WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL
cc:?
EPA - Des Plaines FOS
Huff and Huff, Inc.
Records - Industrial
Binds
Alan Keller, P.E.
Manager, Permit Section
JUN-20-2008 16: 56
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P.23
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PERMIT
LOG NUMBERS: 2703-06?
PERMIT NO.: 2007-EN-2703
FINAL PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, APPLICATION
?
DATE ISSUED: March 19, 2007
AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
PREPARED BY: Huff and Huff, Inc.
SUBJECT: EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION — Construction/Modification to WWTP - ExxonMobil Oil Corp. Joliet
Refinery WWTP tributary to Des Plaines River - NPDES Permit No. IL0002861
PERMITTEE TO CONSTRUCT
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation - Joliet Refinery
Joliet Refinery
25915 S.E. Frontage Road
Channahon, IL 60410
Permit is hereby granted to the above designated permittee(s) to construct and/or operate water pollution control facilities
described as follows:
A modification to the WWTP located at the Joliet Refinery consisting of the addition of a Purge Treatment Unit, which consists
of a combined reactor/clarifier (22 ft diameter, 74 ft high) and heat exchanger system located within the Fluidized Catalytic
Cracking Unit area and the addition of an Integrated Biological System (102 ft diameter, 28 ft high), which consists of an anoxic
and outer aeration zone with recirculation, a de-aeration transition flocculation chamber, eight internal integrated clarifiers
(6,400 sq. ft. of surface area) to work in parallel with the two existing BIOX Basin Clarifiers (16,453 total sq. ft. of surface area),
and all of the pumps, piping, blowers, indicators, meters, sampling equipment, and appurtenances necessary to discharge to
the Joliet Refinery WWTP for treatment before discharging to the Des Plaines River under NPDES Permit No. IL0002861
This Permit is issued subject to the following Special Condition(s). If such Special Condition(s) require(s) additional or revised
facilities, satisfactory engineering plan documents must be submitted to this Agency for review and approval for issuance of
a Supplemental Permit.
SPECIAL CONDITION 1: All sludges generated on-site shall be transported for disposal at an Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency permitted facility using the Agency's Supplemental Permit and manifest system in accordance with the Environmental
Protection Act. If the sludge is a hazardous waste, the generator must comply with all applicable requirements of 35 III. Adm.
Code Parts 702, 703, 705 and 720 to 725.
SPECIAL CONDITION 2:
A. Accumulation of hazardous waste at this facility (if generated) shall be carried out in accordance with 35 III. Adm. Code,
Chapter 1, Subtitle G, Part 722: Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste.
Page 1 of 2
THE STANDARD CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE INDICATED ON THE REVERSE SIDE MUST BE COMPLIED WITH IN
FULL. READ ALL CONDITIONS CAREFULLY.
JUN-20-200B 16:57
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P.24
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PERMIT
LOG NUMBERS: 2703-06
?
PERMIT NO.: 2007-EN-2703
FINAL PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, APPLICATION
?
DATE ISSUED: March 19, 2007
AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
PREPARED BY: Huff and Huff, Inc.
SUBJECT: EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION — Construction/Modification to WWTP - ExxonMobil Oil Corp. Joliet
Refinery VVVVTP tributary to Des Plaines River - NPDES Permit No. IL0002861
B. Transport of all special waste to a permitted treatment, storage or disposal site shall be carried out in accordance with Title
35 III. Adm. Code, Chapter 1, Subtitle G, Part 809: Special Waste Hauling.
SPECIAL CONDITION 3: This Permit is issued with the expressed understanding that there shall be no surface discharge from
these facilities, except for those otherwise approved under NPDES Permit No. IL0002861. If such discharge occurs, additional
or alternate facilities shall be provided. The construction of such additional or alternate facilities may not be started until a
Permit for the construction is issued by this Agency.
SPECIAL CONDITION 4: The operational portion of this permit shall be governed by NPDES Permit No. IL0002861.
SPECIAL CONDITION 5: Issuance of this permit does not release the Permittees from any liability for prior violations of the
Act or Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder.
Page 2 of 2
JUN-20-2008 16:5??DLC LEGAL
?
P.25
ATTACHMENT
2
JUN-20-2008 16:57
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P.26
MAAWAMOWS
Refining a Supply Company
Joliet Refinery
P.O. Box 874
Joliet. Illinois 60434-0874
Of(onMoblP
Refining & Supply
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
April 28, 2008
Mr. Alan Keller
Manager, Permit Section
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, IL 62702
Re:
?
NPDES Permit Renewal NPDES Permit No. IL0002861
Dear Mr. Keller:
I write on behalf of ExxonMobil Oil Corporation's Joliet Refinery (Refinery), located near Joliet, Illinois.
As you are aware, ExxonMobil's Joliet Refinery (Joliet Refinery), under a Consent Order with the State of
Illinois and the federal government, is in the process of installing facilities to reduce sulfur dioxide air
emissions by approximately 80%. In anticipation of the installation of this equipment, a site-specific rule
change for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) was requested and has been approved by the Illinois Pollution
Control Board. and the Illinois Environmental Projection Agency (EPA) has issued the necessary
construction permits for this project. Hydrostatic testing and acclimation of the new equipment is
scheduled to begin this spring and summer, operating under the existing NPDES permit.
Per the Agency's request, ExxonMobil has reviewed carefully the historic performance of the wastewater
treatment plant and the expected performance of the expanded facilities (i.e., wet gas scrubber). In spite
of the additional flow, the Joliet Refinery has elected to retain its existing effluent loading limits for all
parameters, with the exception of one, in the process wastewater effluent, 001. The single exception is
ammonia, where the Joliet Refinery has not pursued renewal of its adjusted standard, and will meet lower
3 mg/L and 6 mg/L effluent limits and lower load limits. This will result in a net decrease in the permitted
ammonia discharge.
Attached please find a revised draft permit, both in red-lined form and without the redlining for your
consideration. Significant requested changes are listed below:
The loadings are based on the new design average flow and design maximum flow for ammonia,
as opposed to only the design maximum flow in the Agency's draft. This results in tighter
ammonia monthly average load limits.
The other load limits for Outfall 001 were based on
the existing NPDES
permit limits, and this is
noted under the "Regulation" column.
acw-twit
MAY 0 1 2000
E
nvironmental Protection Agency
WPC--Permit Log In
MAYA I
ZlO8
Enviro
nmental Protecuon Agency
W
PC--Permit Log in
JUN-20-2008 1657
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P . 27
Page 2
WOES Permit Renewal
•
Moved the note regarding monitoring for chlorine to the appropriate location on the combined
Outfalls 001, 002 and 003.
•
Added a more complete description for Outfalls for
002 and 003.
The second attachment is a supplemental report that addresses the permit application requirements of 35
IAC §302.105 "Antidegradation", consistent with assuming the loading limits discussed above and the
sodium sulfate discharge addressed in the site-specific rule for TDS.
The final attachment provides current Material Safety Data Sheets.
Please contact Brad Sims at (815)
521-7041, if there are any questions regarding this application
addendum. As always, ExxonMobil is prepared to meet with the Agency to discuss any of the requested
changes. We look forward to working with IEPA to finalize this permit.
Very truly yours,
Signature:
?
ze
etratit
Name:
?
Rick E. Szalach
Officials Title: Refinery Manager
Telephone No.: f815) 521-5571
Date Signed:?
4-
re- as
Attach.
WBS/mzf
JUN-20-2008 16:58
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P.28
Page 3
NPDES Permit Renewal NPDES Permit No. IL0002861
bcc:?
Katherine Hodge
Hodge, Dwyer, Zeman
3150 Roland Avenue
Springfield, IL 62703
James E. Huff
Huff & Huff, Inc.
915 Harger Road, Suite 330
Oak Brook, IL 60523
R. E. Szalach
W. G. Sint
M.
Cannon
J. L. Noga
G. R. Morris
H.
F. Smith
W.
B.
Sims
J. G. Florez
R. D. Faford
STATE OF ILLINOIS
?
)
COUNTY OF SANGAMON
?
)
PROOF OF SERVICE
JUN-20-2008 16:52
?DLC LEGAL
?
P . 29
RECEIVED
C
LERK'S OFFICE
JUN 2 3 2008
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served the attached AGENCY'S
RECOMMENDATION upon the persons to whom
it is
directed, by placing a copy in an
envelope addressed to:
John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
Suite 11-500
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Bradley Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center, Suit 11-500
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Jeffery C. Fort
Arid J. Tesher
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
233 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6404
Bill Richardson, General Counsel
Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271
Matthew J. Dunn
Division Chief, Environmental Enforcement
Illinois Attorney General
100 W. Randolph Street, 12
th
Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
and mailing it from Springfield, Illinois on June 20, 2008, with sufficient postage affixed as
indicated above.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME
this day f June 2 , 2008. ,/
?
401.4.444444**44.4.1.4.414
/b, ,
t
[.
,,y., r py bk„,---
?
WICIAL SEAL
C
.
VIIM VouLANKEn
l
.;
NOW
LI
. OCASSI1100
PUIUC, STATE
OS
OF
54411
SUNOS
4
4...
2
.441,444+.444+.44
Notary Public
TOTAL P.29
JUN-20-2008 16:51
?
DLC LEGAL
?
P.01
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DIVISION OF LEGAL COUNSEL
1021 NORTH GRAND AVENUE EAST, POST OFFICE BOX 19276
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62794-9276
TELEPHONE
(217)
782-5544
FACSIMILE
(217) 782-9807
DATE: la)
aot
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO:
PARTY'S NAME:
?
5(4,Y\ 4—etrriatdS4
RECEIVED
CLERKS OFFICE
JUN 2 3 2008
STATE O ILLINOI
Pollution Control Boar
d
FIRM/COMPANY NAME.
?
FACSIMILE NO:
?
TELEPHONE NO:
?
FROM:? SQ.
RE:?
As OZ O'
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE) .?
429
?
HARD COPY
?
WILL
?WILL ?
NOT
?
FOLLOW
?
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (217) 782-5544
COMMENTS'
?
IMPORTANT - THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR
ENTITY TO WHICH
TT
IS ADRESSED; AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED,
CONFIDENTIAL, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER
OF THE MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT
READING,
DISSEMINATING,
DISTRIBUTING, OR COPYING THIS
COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE
IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT
THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S POSTAL SERVICE.
