0001

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

2 IN THE MATTER OF:

)

4 PETITION OF CITGO PETROLEUM

)

5 CORPORATION AND PDV MIDWEST

) AS 08-8

6 REFINING, L.L.C. FOR AN ADJUSTED ) (Adjusted

7 STANDARD FROM AMMONIA NITROGEN ) Standard -

8 DISCHARGE LEVELS AT 35 ILL. ADM. ) Water)

9 CODE 304.122

)

PROCEEDINGS had in the above-entitled cause

on the 20th day of August, 2008, 9:00 a.m.

0002

1 PRESENT:

SONNENSCHEIN, NATH & ROSENTHAL, LLP,

7800 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606-6404

312-876-7934

MR. JEFFREY C. FORT,

MR. ARIEL J. TESHER,

appeared on behalf of the Petitioner,

Citgo Petroleum Corporation;

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

217-782-5544

MR. JASON R. BOLTZ,

MR. DARIN E. LeCRONE, P.E.,

MR. ROBERT G. MOSHER,

appeared on behalf of the Respondent;

0003

1 PRESENT (cont'd.):

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

312-814-3956

MR. ANAND RAO,

MS. ALISA LIU, P.E.,

appeared on behalf of the IPCB;

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

STATE OF ILLINOIS,

69 West Washington Street

Suite 1800

Chicago, Illinois 60602

312-814-3374

MR. ZEMEHERET BEREKET-AB,

appeared on behalf of the Attorney General.

23 REPORTED BY: SHARON BERKERY, C.S.R.

CERTIFICATE NO. 84-4327.

0004

I N D E X

Page

3 OPENING STATEMENT FOR PETITIONER.........13

4 OPENING STATEMENT FOR RESPONDENT.........18

6 WITNESS

DX CX RDX RCX

7 BRIGITTE POSTEL

By Mr. Fort..........47, 117.....185

By Mr. Boltz..............184

10 JAMES E. HUFF, P.E.

By Mr. Fort..........78

By Mr. Boltz..............175

13 ROBERT M. STEIN

By Mr. Fort.........114..........253

By Mr. Boltz..............140...........194, 255

17 DARIN E. LeCRONE

By Mr. Boltz........215

By Mr. Fort...............228

0005

E X H I B I T S

3 NUMBER

MARKED FOR ID RECEIVED

4 Petitioner's Exhibit

5 Exhibit Nos. 1-12...................116

6 Exhibits Nos. 13-15...................122

8 Respondent's Exhibit

9 Exhibit No. 1..........216

10 Exhibit No. 2..........220

11 Exhibit No. 3..........223

0006

THE HEARING OFFICER: Good morning,

everyone. My name is Bradley Halloran, I'm a

hearing officer with the Illinois Pollution

Control Board.

I'm also assigned to this matter 09:03:23

entitled In the Matter of Petition of Citgo

Petroleum Corporation and PDV Midwest

Refining, LLC for an adjusted standard from

ammonia nitrogen discharge levels at 35

Illinois Administrative Code 304.122. It's 09:03:37

docketed on our docket as AS08-8.

Today is August 20th, 2008

approximately 9:02 a.m. I do want to note

that I don't see any members of the public

here not affiliated with any of the parties; 09:03:56

is that correct?

MR. FORT: Correct.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.

We are going to run this hearing

pursuant to Section 104, Subpart D and

09:04:04

Section 101 Subpart F of the Board's

Procedural Rules. I also note for the record

that this hearing was properly noticed up.

The hearing it intended to develop a record

0007

for Illinois Pollution Control Board.

I won't be making the decision, it

will be the four members of the Board who do

that. I'm only here to rule on evidentiary

matters and make sure that everything is in 09:04:28

order.

At this point, I'd like to have

the parties introduce themselves. Mr. Fort,

Mr. Tesher?

MR. FORT: Jeffrey Fort, Sonnenschein, 09:04:35

Nath, and Rosenthal on behalf of the

Petitioner, Citgo. And with me is my

colleague, Ariel Tesher, also of

Sonnenschein.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, sir. 09:04:45

Mr. Boltz?

MR. BOLTZ: Yes. Jason Boltz, that's

B-O-L-T-Z. I am assistant counsel with the

Illinois EPA. Accompanying me today is

Mr. Darin LeCrone, also of the Agency, as

09:04:53

well as Mr. Bob Mosher. We are here on

behalf of the Agency pursuant to its

requirements to participate in the hearings.

I believe it's 29.1 of the Illinois

0008

Environmental Protection Act. Thank you.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you,

Mr. Boltz.

I see an Assistant Attorney

General here. Sir, would you like to

09:05:13

introduce yourself?

MR. BEREKET-AB: Aemeheret Bereket-Ab,

on behalf of the people of the Attorney

General's Office.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Thank

09:05:21

you, sir.

A brief note, on August 14th,

2008, the petitioner filed a -- it's entitled

a Motion to Exclude Unfiled IEPA Testimony.

Mr. Tesher and Mr. Fort, would you 09:05:36

like to elaborate on that, please?

MR. FORT: Well, Your Honor, we have a

schedule here that calls for prefiled

testimony in this matter. We filed our

testimony on August 1st, as required.

09:05:47

The Agency did not. And that was

countered to our expectations that the

parties were going to do so pursuant to

your -- we don't know what is going to happen

0009

here without having that prefiled testimony.

It was a common courtesy, it was

something that, even before it became

customary with the Board to do prefiled

testimony, that that narrative testimony was 09:06:16

prepared and given to the other side a few

days ahead of time, at a minimum, so...

THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you,

Mr. Fort.

I do note that the IEPA has not 09:06:25

responded, but they did have 14 days, and

it's August 14th. Mr. Boltz, would you like

to address this motion now?

MR. BOLTZ: Yes, Your Honor. Thank

you.

09:06:37

Certainly, Your Honor, the Agency

did not respond by way of providing --

prefiling testimony. But if you'll note, and

correctly, the July 9th order, by yourself,

sir, does not require, necessarily, the

09:06:50

issuance of prefiling testimony.

That's an opportunity. It's an

opportunity to present evidence not under

duress, not under stress, not under having

0010

objections being elicited at the time the

testimony is offered.

Your Honor, pursuant to 101.626 of

the hearing rules, Subsection D, it provides

for the allowance of written testimony. Now 09:07:15

again, that's an allowance, that's a

privilege, it's not, necessarily, a mandatory

act, unless the Board says that that is to be

the case.

The only requirement pursuant to 09:07:23

written testimony is that it's proffered

before the hearing so the other side has an

opportunity to look at it, to respond, to do

what it needs to do to react to it. But

otherwise, and as Your Honor has correctly 09:07:34

noted, we add here to standards and the rules

set forth both in Part 11, Part 104, pursuant

to the Rules of Procedure and is allowed for

by the rules, as well as the Environmental

Protection Act. None of those bases in law, 09:07:50

obviously, have been cited through the motion

because there is no basis in law to preclude

testimony as offered by the Agency in this

matter.

0011

As a result, Your Honor, we would

ask that the motion be denied. There's no

basis in law, there's no basis in your order,

there's no basis anywhere to preclude this

testimony. Thank you.

09:08:10

THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.

Mr. Berekat-Ab, do you have any

comment, or are you just here for

observation?

MR. BEREKET-AB: I'm just here to

09:08:18

observe.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. All

right. Thank you.

I think, Mr. Boltz was correct

when he said it was an opportunity to respond 09:08:24

to Citgo's prefiled testimony. With that

said, I'm going to deny the motion filed

August 14th by petitioner.

However, if the witness from the

IEPA is called, I would -- what I'll have to 09:08:45

do is continue this matter on record for two

or three weeks down the road. We can address

that later, so that Citgo can possibly

formulate any cross or follow-up. I think

0012

that's about the only way we can do this.

I realize -- I think your permit

is up December 2008, but that would still, it

appears, give the Board plenty of time to

make a decision on it.

09:09:11

MR. FORT: Well, we will utilize that

opportunity if we need to. But, as you

pointed out, we've been trying to get to this

point for some time and we haven't been

getting a lot of assistance, if you will, in 09:09:23

terms of the dialogue with the Agency or them

even asking us questions, can you give us

more information on this or that.

We will abide by the order.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Understood,

09:09:34

Mr. Fort. In the alternative, if I grant

your motion, which I did not, the Board could

reverse me and we'd be back here in probably

two months down the road. So there you go.

In any event -- so I denied the motion, and 09:09:48

if need be, we will continue this on the

record two or three weeks down the road so

Citgo can formulate any cross.

I do want to note that I am

0013

honored to introduce Anand Rao and Alisa Liu

from our technical unit, they'll be here

today and they will probably be asking

questions of various witnesses.

With that said, Mr. Fort, would 09:10:11

you like to give an opening?

MR. FORT: Yes, thank you. Very

briefly.

First of all, I'd like to point

out that this proposal that we've advanced, 09:10:17

the adjusted standard proposal, is a

reduction from what is presently allowed. So

we're going in the direction of improving our

effluent discharge, and we are making efforts

in great strides in that effect.

09:10:34

I would also like to point out

that the Agency has proposed a new ammonia

nitrogen water quality standard in what we

call the Use Attainability Analysis, the UAA

rulemaking, pending before the Board, which 09:10:50

would establish a new ammonia nitrogen

standard in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship

Canal into which the refinery discharges.

Those waters today, into which we are

0014

discharging today, meet that proposed water

quality standard.

So the rhetoric that I've seen and

the Agency recommendation about water quality

effects or biota, I think is really

09:11:13

misplaced. It was very disturbing for us to

see that sort of position being taken by the

Agency in this proceeding, when, before the

Board in a rulemaking proceeding, they are

advancing the very water quality standard

09:11:25

that we can meet at the mixing zone.

Yet, they say we're doing bad

things with what we're proposing in terms of

reducing our ammonia discharge. So,

basically, we could argue that, based upon 09:11:39

the water quality that exists today, that no

further reductions are necessary from those

that we've been doing in the past.

But we are proposing to make it

tighter. We cannot, though, meet the three 09:11:52

milligram per liter, six milligram per liter

standard on a consistent basis in the nature

of compliance 100 percent of the time. And

we think that's unfair for the Agency to put

0015

us in a position that would put us in not

compliance a large portion of the time.

Mr. Huff has done a calculation of

the probabilities of where things would be,

based upon past performance -- based upon

09:12:19

recent past performance over the last five

years. And we've set the proposed numbers

that we have in our petition at a 95 percent

competence level.

What that means is that the

09:12:32

refinery is going to have to do better than

it has been doing in order to comply, even

with the proposed lower standard that we have

brought before the Board today. I think it's

well known to the Board -- we'll have

09:12:42

testimony today that nitrification for an

industrial effluent is not easy, it's not the

same as municipal treatment plants.

We thought the Agency citations to

the 1972 Board proceeding were out of

09:12:55

context. That context was clearly the

ability to nitrify for sanitary wastewater.

And Bob Stein will provide testimony on what

USEPA found years later, in terms of the lack

0016

of technology to achieve the kind of standard

that the Board adopted principally based upon

a sanitary wastewater discharge.

I also want to note that in the

past there's been times that we have been

09:13:26

able to achieve nitrification. It may have

gone for two to three years at a time. But

then, the mix of crude old changes,

production changes, some other event occurs

and we lose the ability to nitrify on a

09:13:38

consistent basis.

You will hear that, again and

again today, we are unable to achieve

nitrification on a consistent basis. So that

brings us to a question, perhaps, of why

09:13:50

we're doing an adjusted standard.

We have had site-specific rules in

the past. We filed an adjusted standard

really at the Agency's suggestion.

The Agency suggested to us that it 09:14:00

would be better to do an adjusted standard

and a site-specific rule because it

simplifies their interactions with USEPA.

And we felt that was a reasonable request to

0017

make.

We looked at the time horizon

here, we're only asking for five years. You

might ask, well, why don't you do a variance?

The answer is, we cannot find a guarantee

09:14:18

that we're going to be able to consistently

comply 100 percent of the time or even

95 percent of the time with the three-six

milligram per liter standard.

We will provide more testimony

09:14:30

that -- about the other refineries that the

Agency has sited. And I think we have just,

quite frankly, not gotten the whole picture

of what's really occurring at other

refineries in Illinois.

09:14:42

We are dealing in a situation now

where water quality is probably an important

consideration certainly. But we all know

about our energy issues, we know about the

need to remove our dependency on foreign oil. 09:14:53

The Lemont refinery is certainly

doing what it can do to process crude oils

that are not as easy to process as those that

they've had in the past. We think that's a

0018

good thing.

But at the same time, given the

tightness of the three milligram per liter

number for ammonia nitrogen, we cannot tell

the Board or the Agency or the Attorney

09:15:16

General in good faith that we can meet that

number. So that's why we're here today.

We're trying to make further

improvements. We have a lot of projects that

we're working on that we think will do

09:15:26

better, but today we cannot say, as of

December 31, 2008, we're going to be able to

nitrify 100 percent of the time. Thank you.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you,

Mr. Fort.

09:15:39

Mr. Boltz?

MR. BOLTZ: Thank you, sir.

First, I want to thank the Board

for the opportunity to participate in the

hearing today. I know that sometimes these 09:15:44

things are time consuming and we hate to take

away from your time that we already know is

very much consumed. And again, we appreciate

it.

0019

I wanted to react, obviously,

along with presenting an opening statement,

to some of the things that Mr. Fort has

proffered on behalf of the petitioner. First

of all, we wanted to put the context of this 09:16:00

hearing in its appropriate place.

This is not an adversarial

proceeding where the Agency is, necessarily,

standing in the way or is against or is

trying to prove more or less evidence than 09:16:11

petitioner. The petitioner is trying to go

after the general applicability of

304.122(b). They're trying to attack and

divest and get past those standards that are

complied by another refinery in the state of 09:16:26

Illinois.

They are not, necessarily, trying

to reproach the Agency or say the Agency -- I

mean, the Agency, obviously, has filled a

recommendation, very much like a guardianship 09:16:36

hearing, where a third party, a guardian

ad litem, would provide to the Court, to the

Court's benefit, a third-party perspective of

the matter. That's exactly what's going on

0020

here.

While the Agency is the primary

regulator of the environment within the state

of Illinois, for the perspective of this

hearing, it's about the rule. It's about

09:16:54

Citgo's ability to hear the rule.

That rule of law is what's at

issue today. Not with what the Agency has

presented or hasn't presented, the Agency is

here to ask tough questions, as it should be, 09:17:07

put perspective pursuant to the law, pursuant

to the Environmental Protection Act, pursuant

to Section 26, 27, 28.

Specifically, I want to correct

myself, the Agency is here pursuant to

09:17:21

Section 28.1(d)(3), which requires, again,

the Agency to participate. And that's

exactly what's going on.

Now, the Agency has provided it's

recommendation that Citgo's petition be

09:17:32

denied. And that's because, at this point in

time, adequate proof hasn't been presented by

the petitioner.

Again, it's not a more likely than

0021

not, it's not, you know, a certain burden

that they're trying to reach. The need is to

present 100 percent of the necessary evidence

of the adequate proof so the Board can make

the decision that they've met that standard, 09:17:52

where there's enough evidence that's been put

before you, that's been admitted before the

Board and the hearing officer, to make the

correct decision whether or not they should

be offered -- they should be provided an

09:18:03

adjusted standard differing from the other

refineries in the state of Illinois, who,

while they may not all necessarily comply

with 304.122(b), they all comply with their

general applicability standards moving

09:18:17

forward today. All of them. Except for

Citgo. That's -- those are the facts.

Now, with respect to the facts.

Most of the facts offered by Citgo, aside

from some of the conclusory statements, we're 09:18:30

not contesting. The Agency isn't contesting

many of the underlying facts. They're not

contesting, you know, whether or not they've

done this or that or spent so much money.

0022

But the Agency does see problems

with a couple of issues -- with a couple of

legal issues that haven't -- that we haven't

seen that the -- that from the Agency's

perspective, haven't been met. We haven't 09:18:50

seen 100 percent of that adequate proof yet

to meet the standard.

Specifically, Section 27 the Act

requires both -- requires a number of

factors. But two of the primary factors that 09:19:03

the Agency is looking at is technical

feasibility and economic reasonableness.

Those are two very important factors, as the

courts have looked at going through the

years.

09:19:16

Those two factors by themselves,

if not met, can allow the Board to deny their

petition. If they haven't provided you

enough evidence, if they haven't submitted

enough meat within their submission for that 09:19:30

petition, it should be denied.

First of all, with respect to

technical feasibility. Again, moving forward

today, only petitioner hasn't met their

0023

standards, which would be a deviation from

the general applicability limits. Only they

are requesting, you know, whether it be a

site specific rule or an adjusted standard,

only they are telling you today that because 09:19:53

it's so difficult -- because it's so

difficult for them to acknowledge why they

can't do it, because, you know, whether it be

their technology or the way they approach

things, they can't get it done. Well, the 09:20:03

bottom line is, these other refineries are

getting it done. And they will tell you

today -- they've already told you in the

testimony that they've provided, that the

technology that they use is very similar to 09:20:13

the technology used by the other refineries

in the state of Illinois. So when you think

about technical feasibility, when you think

about their technical ability to get it done,

they're saying only they can't get it done. 09:20:27

Now, the Agency isn't saying that

sufficient evidence can't be provide to

necessarily overcome that, but we haven't

heard that. That's the perspective the

0024

Agency is looking at today. Those are the

questions that come into our heads.

Now, we're not looking to create

the case when petitioner presents its

testimony and its evidence today. But those 09:20:51

are the questions before us, those are the

questions in our minds, those are the issues

that need to be looked at and need to be

delved into.

Secondly, I'd like for one point 09:21:05

of clarification to be made within the

Agency's recommendation. While the Agency

stated that the other three refineries in the

state of Illinois are capable of meeting the

304.122(b) standard, we would like to say

09:21:27

today that that statement was made too

broadly. Okay?

While it is true that Marathon Oil

and Exxon Oil, two of the other three

refineries, do meet that standard, Conoco may 09:21:37

be capable, they may in fact be capable, but

they do in fact meet their general

applicability standards. They have not been

before you, they have not sought any sort of

0025

deviation from their general applicability

rule. And that should be noted. And -- I

won't get into that yet.

And secondly, our other issue,

again, is economic reasonableness. Again, 09:22:05

this is a requirement for the petitioner.

The petitioner can't merely throw

out a number and say, "Well, you know, it's a

lot of money." This is a lot of money so we

can't get it done. You know, there is more 09:22:14

than that.

They need -- I mean, they are not

Joe Shmo Oil Company, they're not an oil

company that makes $100 a year. They need to

present to the Board necessary proof that, 09:22:26

from their perspective, from their own

company, from the money they make and the

money they need to expend, from their

perspective, that they can't get it done.

Because the adjusted standard they're seeking 09:22:37

is specific to them. And that needs to be

kept in perspective, as well. So we would --

we would, therefore, present, at this point

with the evidence provided, where we are

0026

today is the Agency's current recommendation

that the petition for the adjusted standard

be denied.

If the petitioner meets that

burden today, certainly the Agency would look 09:23:02

to maybe rereview, take a look again at it's

recommendation. But today, that

requirement -- that 100 percent of the

adequate proof requirement hasn't been met.

Thank you.

09:23:14

THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you,

Mr. Boltz.

I do want to note, for the record,

if it hasn't been done already, Citgo did

file prefiled testimony on August 1st. Is it 09:23:21

Brigitte Postel, Mr. Huff and Bob Stein.

And it's been suggested that we

swear all the three witness in at once for

Citgo. And Mr. Fort or Mr. Tesher can do any

direct they wish. The IEPA can do their

09:23:43

cross. But, more importantly, for my

purpose, our technical personnel will be

asking them the questions, as well.

So with that said -- and I assume

0027

that Citgo will offer that prefiled testimony

later in this hearing. But at this time, I

would like to swear in the three witnesses

who filed the prefiled testimony.

If you can just raise your right 09:24:08

hand, Sharon will swear you in.

(WHEREUPON, the witnesses were duly

sworn.)

THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Fort, how do

you want to handle this? Do you just want 09:24:22

to...

MR. FORT: Let me do the mechanics of

the prefiled testimony and exhibits so we'll

get that all behind us.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay.

09:24:32

MR. FORT: And then we can go from

there.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Terrific.

MR. FORT: I'll probably go through

each one of them a little bit, because each 09:24:37

of them have their own exhibits.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay.

PREFILED TESTIMONY OF BRIGITTE POSTEL

My name is Brigitte Postel. I

0028

have been employed by CITGO Petroleum

Corporation (“CITGO”) at the Lemont Refinery

since October, 2003. At the Lemont Refinery,

I have held the position of Environmental

Engineer, Water Coordinator.

I received a Bachelor of Science

in Chemistry from the University of Illinois,

Champaign-Urbana, and a Masters of Science in

Environmental Engineering from Lamar

University, Beaumont, Texas. Prior to my

time at the Lemont Refinery, I held various

environmental positions in the

pharmaceutical, chemical, and power

industries.

II. Testimony

1. PDV Midwest Refining, L.L.C. (“The

Refinery”) owns a petroleum refinery located

on an 860-acre tract in Will County near

Lemont, Illinois. The Refinery was formerly

owned and operated by the Union Oil Company

of California (“Union”) and then operated by

the UNO-VEN Company. On May 1, 1997, PDV

became the owner of the Refinery and CITGO

was contracted to operate the Refinery.

0029

2. Despite extensive improvements and other

efforts, the Refinery is not able to

consistently meet the ammonia nitrogen

effluent limits contained in Section

304.122(b) of Subpart B of Part 304 of Title

35 of the Illinois Administrative Code

(ammonia nitrogen rule). I want to emphasize

that “consistently” meeting the rule is the

focus of our Petition. The general ammonia

nitrogen discharge rule would apply to the

Refinery, but for site specific rule changes

granted in 1987, 1993 and 1998. Despite

steady improvements during the last twenty

years, Petitioner and its predecessors have

been unable to consistently achieve the

effluent limits of the ammonia nitrogen rule.

The Refinery has been successful in lowering

the ammonia nitrogen concentration in its

effluent and has achieved this success even

though the plant throughput has increased and

wastewater usage has decreased. The Refinery

is prepared to continue efforts to reduce its

ammonia nitrogen discharge, but it cannot

0030

commit to continuously meet the general

effluent limit in 35 Ill. Admin. Code

304.122(b). Additional information requested

by the Board’s hearing officer, Bradley

Halloran, may be found in Exhibit 1 to this

testimony.

3. We have attempted to work with the Agency

on this matter and initiated meetings with

the Agency last November. As suggested by

the Agency then, we agreed to separate the

Total Dissolved Solids issues from the

ammonia nitrogen issues - and further agreed

to use the adjusted standard approach rather

than the site-specific rule change - in order

to meet the requirements of U.S.EPA in

reviewing Illinois’s water quality standards.

We are disappointed that the Agency did not

engage in any technical discussions on the

content of our proposal and filed the

Recommendation it has. We disagree with the

Agency’s statements in its Recommendation,

which we believe mis-characterize the

Petition and are not based on facts. One

0031

thing we could agree with is to continue to

improve our existing biological treatment

processes, solids handling processes, and the

desalter. Indeed, as will be shown by other

presented testimony, the Refinery is

currently discharging, on an average basis,

less ammonia nitrogen than is in its raw

water supply. Of course, that is because the

Refinery is on an “effluent dominated water,”

the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, as the

Agency has testified to in the UAA rulemaking

proceeding.

4. The Refinery was constructed during the

period 1967 through 1970. It became

operational in late fall of 1969. The

Refinery employs approximately 530 people.

5. Approximately twenty-five different

products are produced at the Refinery,

including gasolines, turbine fuels, diesel

fuels, furnace oils, petroleum coke and

various specialty naphthas which can be

manufactured into many intermediate products,

0032

including antifreeze, dacron, detergent,

industrial alcohols, plastics and synthetic

rubber. Ninety percent of the Refinery’s

output goes into making gasolines, diesel

fuels, home heating oils and turbine fuels

for use in Illinois and throughout the

Midwest.

6. The Refinery currently discharges to the

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (“Canal”)

which is a tributary of the Illinois River.

The discharge is quickly dispersed in the

Canal and assimilated by the receiving

stream. The dilution pattern of the effluent

is rapid and immediate under the criteria of

35 Ill. Admin. Code Subtitle C, Chapter I,

Section 302.102.

7. The primary treatment portion of the

current plant consists of four sour water

strippers for ammonia and sulfide removal,

oil/water separators for free oil removal,

stormwater impoundment, equalization, and

emulsified oil removal using organic

0033

polymers.

8. The effluent from the primary clarifier

flows to the Induced Gas Flotation (“IGF”)

vessel and then to the secondary treatment

portion of the wastewater plant which

consists of a single stage activated sludge

treatment system. The system includes three

aeration basins operated in parallel with a

total aeration basin volume of 1.92 million

gallons. Aeration is provided by a

fine-bubble diffused aeration system.

Activated sludge is settled in two 100-ft.

Diameter secondary clarifiers. Within the

aeration basin, phosphorous is added as a

nutrient for biological organisms. During

the winter, steam is injected to the

equalization tank to maintain operating

temperatures at a minimum of 70° F in the

aeration basin effluent.

9. The tertiary system consists of a 16

million gallon polishing lagoon. The purpose

of the lagoon is to remove any carryover

0034

solids from the secondary clarifier. The

lagoon also serves as a water supply for fire

protection.

10. The Refinery draws from and discharges

to the Canal. The Refinery takes

approximately 5.0 million gallons of water

daily from the Canal, and discharges

approximately 4.5 million gallons to the

Canal, the difference being cooling tower

evaporation and steam losses. The wastewater

effluent contains ammonia as nitrogen derived

from compounds present in crude oil that are

removed from the crude by various Refinery

operations, as well as the ammonia already

present in the intake water from the Canal.

11. The Refinery operates under a National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(“NPDES”) permit (No. IL 0001589), issued by

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(“IEPA,” or “the Agency”). The most recent

NPDES permit was issued as modified June 22,

2007 and expires July 31, 2011. The NPDES

0035

permit includes outfall 001 at the Refinery

at river mile 296.5 on the Canal (Latitude

41°38’58”, Longitude 88°03’31”). The current

NPDES permit includes ammonia nitrogen limits

in the existing 35 IAC 304.213.

12. The U.S. EPA has established effluent

guidelines for wastewater discharges by

industry category. The petroleum refining

industry is divided into five subcategories

based on the processes utilized and the

products produced. The Refinery is

classified as a Subcategory-B cracking

refinery under the federal regulations.

Effluent limits under the federal regulations

are based on production and are computed on a

pounds-per-day basis.

13. U.S. EPA has promulgated categorical

limits on various industries, including the

petroleum refining industry. While these

regulations, found in 40 CFR 419, do specify

limits for ammonia nitrogen, these are less

stringent than the limits in the existing

0036

site-specific rule. The Board has previously

found that the wastewater treatment system

goes beyond Best Available Technology (“BAT”)

requirements.

14. The Board has adopted Title 35, Section

304.122 to control ammonia discharges to the

Illinois River System, originally Rule 406,

adopted Jan 6, 1972. Rule 304.122(b) limits

larger industrial discharges (greater than

100 lbs/day ammonia) to an effluent discharge

concentration of 3.0 mg/l NH3-N.

Historically, the refinery has achieved

compliance with the federal effluent

regulations; however, the 3.0 mg/l effluent

limit has not been attainable on a consistent

basis.

15. From 1977 through 1984, Union operated

the Refinery under several variances from the

Board for the ammonia nitrogen discharge. In

1982, the Board granted Union a variance,

contingent that by May of 1984, Union would

submit a program to ensure compliance with

0037

Rule 304.122 or prepare a proposal for a site

specific rule change. In December of 1984,

Union petitioned the Board for a site

specific rule change. The Board granted

Union site specific effluent limits set at

the U.S. EPA’s best available technology

(BAT) pursuant to 40 CFR 419.23 (1985). This

site specific rule change terminated on

December 31, 1993. In 1993, UNO-VEN

petitioned the Board for a site specific rule

change. The Board granted UNO-VEN’s request

and set effluent limits for ammonia nitrogen

of 9.4 mg/l monthly average and 26.0 mg/l

daily maximum. By final order dated December

17, 1998, the Board made only two changes to

the rule as adopted in 1993: A change of the

name to reflect the sale to PDV Midwest

Refining, LLC, and an extension of the

termination date by 9 years to December 31,

2008.

16. The Refinery has improved its

performance of ammonia removal despite higher

crude throughput and a decrease in wastewater

0038

volume. Wastewater volumes have decreased

since 1984 through the exercise of sound

water management practices. Despite these

factors that would tend to increase ammonia

concentration, the Refinery has maintained

and improved its performance in ammonia

removal.

17. The limits for ammonia nitrogen proposed

here are based on a statistical analysis

using the 95th percentile of the standard

deviation over historical and representative

time periods to calculate the effluent

limits. The daily and monthly limit is based

on the 95th percentile based on the last five

years of effluent data. The limits proposed

demonstrate the commitment to improvement in

nitrification, a reduction in the daily limit

of 59 percent and in the monthly limit of 27

percent. Jim Huff will explain these

calculations in his testimony.

18. Over the last several years, Lemont

Refinery has been processing an increased

0039

percentage of heavy crudes and can expect the

trend in feedstocks over the course of this

petition to continue. The uncertainty

associated with this issue justifies the

Board choosing to set daily and monthly

limits that take into account this

uncertainty. Moreover, this analysis

indicates that the proposed limits represent

a continued emphasis on improvement in

wastewater controls and achieving

nitrification in the wastewater treatment

plant even with more difficult wastewater

streams to be treated. Over the last 5

years, on a net basis, the Refinery has

exceeded 100 pounds on a monthly daily

average for ammonia only 33 percent of the

time, and exceeded 200 pounds per day for

ammonia only 17 percent of the time.

19. At this point, Petitioner and its

predecessors have expended significant

resources in improving the wastewater

treatment system at the Refinery. Petitioner

and its predecessors have spent nearly

0040

$75,000,000 to upgrade and improve the

wastewater treatment facilities at the

Refinery; approximately $45,000,000 of that

was spent just in the last 10 years. While

some of that was not done for the specific

purpose of improving nitrification,

approximately one quarter of that investment

had, as a substantial component, improving

the ability of the wastewater treatment

process to provide nitrification. Even

investments that did not primarily target

nitrification were done to benefit the

nitrification process. For example, the

Purge Treatment Unit (“PTU”) that was

installed as part of the FCC consent decree

was required in large part to ensure

consistent ammonia nitrogen removal. The

testimony of Bob Stein provides more detail

on this matter.

20. Under the site specific rule change

granted in 1987, the Refinery was required to

continue its efforts to reduce the

concentration of ammonia nitrogen in its

0041

wastewaters. The Refinery met this

requirement through continuous upgrades to

the wastewater treatment plant. After

petitioning for the 1987 site specific rule

change, the Refinery: Added a third aeration

basin, increasing the total aeration volume

from 1.38 million gallons to 1.92 million

gallons; Upgraded the aeration system by

replacing the existing mechanical surface

aerators with a fine-bubble diffused aeration

system; and Added the second 100-ft. Diameter

secondary clarifier, doubling the secondary

clarifier capacity. These improvements were

designed to increase ammonia oxidation,

increase available dissolved oxygen and

increase hydraulic throughput.

21. While the site specific rule change was

granted in 1993, the Refinery continued its

efforts to reduce the concentration of

ammonia nitrogen in its wastewaters. From

1992 until 1998, the Refinery: Installed a

new chemical feed facility at the WWTP;

Eliminated discharge of process wastewater to

0042

the stormwater basin and provided tankage for

equalization/oil separation of process

wastewater; Converted the WWTP control system

to new DCS control Modified the sour water

stripper charge tanks inlet line for better

oil/water separation; Performed a clean

closure of the stormwater basin; and

Utilized Nalco dried bacteria and conducted

nitrifier inhibition testing.

22. Since 1998, the Refinery has continued

to make improvements to its wastewater

treatment system. Those measures have

included: In 2000 installed induced gas

flotation system with polymer addition;

In 2003, added additional strippers in the

sour water system for ammonia removal;

Also in 2003, upgraded diffused aerators to

improve oxygen transfer; In 2006, upgraded

phosphoric acid feed system and the aerators

to improve oxygen transfer; In 2007,

installed purge treatment unit to treat the

discharge from the FCC scrubber; And also in

2007, upgraded diffused aerators to improve

0043

oxygen transfer. The total cost of these

improvements was approximately $45,000,000.

23. While there has been success in reducing

the effluent ammonia nitrogen concentration,

the Refinery is unaware of proven means to

comply with the ammonia nitrogen rule on a

continuous basis. The options available to

Lemont are 20-68 times more expensive, on a

unit cost basis, than other available

alternatives for ammonia removal. Therefore,

it is possible to spend millions of dollars

in an attempt to implement unproven

strategies for potential ammonia nitrogen

reduction even though:

(a) the present level of wastewater

treatment at the Refinery is better than the

United States Environmental Protection

Agency’s (“U.S. EPA”) effluent guideline of

best available technology (“BAT”)

economically achievable; and

(b) the ammonia nitrogen discharge for the

Refinery has no discernable water quality

impact on the receiving stream.

0044

24. The requested amendment will allow

Lemont Refinery to continue to operate

without spending millions of dollars on

unproven technology in an attempt to

accomplish further ammonia nitrogen

reductions with little or no environmental

benefit. The Refinery will continue to

optimize its treatment facilities, regardless

of the outcome of this Petition. Indeed, the

daily limit requested here represents a 59

percent reduction, substantially below the

level authorized in 1998.

25. The Lemont Refinery has investigated the

available information on the performance of

other refineries in Illinois to provide

nitrification. The conclusions of that

investigation are in the 2007 Aware report,

but can be summarized as follows:

(a) the other refineries were using similar

technological approaches as used by the

Lemont refinery design, and none of them were

using the technologies investigated by Aware

0045

as possible additions to the Lemont Refinery;

(b) there are site specific variations in

how the wastewater treatment systems are

designed and operated, as well as some

differences in the crude supply; and

design specifics which may be worth exploring

for potential use and modifications at the

Lemont Refinery to further enhance its

nitrification capabilities.

26. Based on evaluations and reports that

accompany this Petition, the Refinery will

continue to investigate improvements to its

existing wastewater treatment system. It is

believed that focusing on better solids

handling from the desalter holds the greatest

promise for achieving improved wastewater

treatment performance on a consistent basis.

The options that will be investigated

include: An in situ solid removal system,

increased tankage to allow brine segregation;

amine management; and adjusting chemical

usage to reduce emulsification in the primary

0046

treatment units.

27. At this point in time, the total ammonia

discharge from the Refinery, on an average

basis over the last 5 years, is less than the

allowable discharge of 3 mg/l, even when

about 25 percent of that discharge is due to

the ammonia nitrogen levels already in the

Canal. Nevertheless, the Refinery will

continue to look to improve its treatment for

ammonia nitrogen.

28. Through the first six months of 2008,

the refinery has removed 29 pounds per day

from the Ship Canal, while adding only 17

pounds per day. To date, the 2008 annual

average ammonia concentration is 0.39 mg/L.

29. This concludes my prepared testimony.

Jim Huff and Bob Stein will provide further

testimony and exhibits in support of the

Petition.

BRIGITTE POSTEL,

24 called as a witness herein, having been first duly

0047

1 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

3 BY MR. FORT:

Q. Ms. Postal, you filed prefiled

5 testimony in this matter; correct?

09:24:45

A. Yes.

Q. And attached to that prefiled

8 testimony, I believe, is Exhibit 1?

A. Right.

Q. And have you reviewed that document 09:24:52

11 that we called Exhibit 1 and are you confident that

12 it's true, accurate and complete?

A. Yes.

PREFILED TESTIMONY OF JAMES E. HUFF.

My name is James E. Huff, and I am

Vice President and part owner of Huff & Huff,

Inc., an environmental consulting firm

founded in 1979. I received a Bachelor of

Science in Chemical Engineering in 1970 from

Purdue University and was awarded a Masters

of Science in Engineering from the

Environmental Engineering Department at

Purdue University in 1971. I am a registered

0048

Professional Engineer in Illinois. My work

experience includes two years with Mobil Oil

as an Advanced Environmental Engineer during

the construction and start-up of the Joliet

Refinery. After leaving Mobil in the fall of

1973, I was employed for three years at IIT

Research Institute in the Chemical

Engineering Department, working on advanced

wastewater treatment projects including

catalytic oxidation of cyanide in petroleum

wastewaters. I then spent four years with

the Armak Company, now called Akzo Nobel

Chemicals, where I was the Corporate Manager

of Environmental Affairs responsible for

regulatory compliance and engineering design

of environmental systems at nine

manufacturing facilities in the United States

and Canada. Three of these chemical plants

were fatty amines manufacturers, where

ammonia was utilized as a raw material and

was a major component in the wastewater.

For the last 28 years at Huff & Huff, Inc., I

have been involved in over 40 environmental

impact studies associated with the impact of

0049

wastewater discharges on receiving streams

throughout the United States. Many of these

studies have involved ammonia nitrogen

impacts, including those for the City of

Lockport, CITGO Lemont Refinery and its

predecessors UNO-VEN and Union Oil,

ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, the Galesburg

Sanitary District, and Modine Manufacturing.

I was Project Manager on a year long Fox

River Ammonia Study on behalf of most of the

municipal discharges on the Fox River below

the Chain-of-Lakes. I was an active

participant in the ammonia water quality

proceedings (R94-1b), on behalf of six

communities and the Indian Refining

Corporation. I am currently working on

addressing low dissolved oxygen levels on the

East Branch of the Du Page River and Salt

Creek on behalf of the Du Page River/Salt

Creek Work Group. In addition, I have been

actively involved in the current UAA

proceedings on the Chicago Waterways on

behalf of three industrial clients. I have

designed nitrification facilities for both

0050

industrial and municipal wastewater treatment

plants. I was retained by CITGO Petroleum

Corporation (Lemont Refinery) to evaluate the

environmental impact of the ammonia in the

Lemont Refinery’s discharge to the Chicago

Sanitary & Ship Canal. See 2008 report

attached as Exhibit 2. I have directed

previous studies relating to the same issue

for previous site-specific requests for the

Lemont Refinery. See 1992 report attached as

Exhibit 3. A copy of my resume is attached

as Exhibit 4. In addition, effluent limits

were derived based upon existing effluent

quality, BAT, and current water quality

conditions.

Background

The Lemont Refinery is located southwest of

Lemont, Illinois, east of Romeoville, along

the east side of the Chicago Sanitary & Ship

Canal (Ship Canal), at River Mile 296.5.

Water is withdrawn from the Ship Canal for

refinery use, and the treated wastewater

effluent is discharged to the Ship Canal 5.5

miles upstream of the Lockport Lock and Dam

0051

and less than one mile upstream of Midwest

Generation’s Romeoville Power Plant.

The wastewater treatment facilities came on

line in 1969, the same time the refinery

began processing crude oil. The treatment

plant underwent major changes in 1992,

including new process water storage tanks, a

new aeration basin, a new clarifier, and fine

bubble diffusers. Over the past decade, the

Lemont Refinery has expended an additional

$45 million on capital projects related to

ammonia control and reduction. Over the past

five years the processing of heavier crude

oils has increased. These heavier crude oils

contain more inert solids and create more

stable emulsions in the desalter unit. The

result has been not only a significant

increase in chemical addition to remove oil

(break the emulsions) and solids in the

process water, but a more variable influent

loading on the activated sludge treatment

process.

The Ship Canal is classified as Secondary

Contact water under Illinois regulations.

0052

There is no total ammonia water quality

standard applicable to the Ship Canal.

Un-ionized ammonia, which is a function of

the total ammonia, pH, and temperature, is

limited by a not-to-exceed value of 0.1 mg/L.

This water quality standard is to be achieved

at the edge of the mixing zone. The Agency

has proposed to amend the ammonia water

quality standard on the Secondary Contact

Waterways to be the same standard as in the

General Use Standards in R08-09, currently

before the Board.

Influent and Effluent Quality

The Lemont Refinery water intake is located

approximately 175 feet upstream of the

outfall and is routinely analyzed for ammonia

by the refinery. Ammonia quality in the Ship

Canal has steadily improved over the past two

decades, from an annual average of 3.77 mg/L

in 1987, to 1.28 mg/L in 1996, to 0.56 mg/L

in 2007, as depicted in the attached Exhibit

5, Figure 1. This decline is attributed

primarily to the reduction in effluent

ammonia achieved by the MWRDGC at its

0053

upstream treatment plants over this period of

time.

Effluent ammonia quality from the Lemont

Refinery is presented in Exhibit 5, Figure 2.

From 1995 until 2005 the annual average

ammonia concentration was below 3.0 mg/L. In

2005, with the increase in the processing of

the heavier crude oils and resultant higher

loading on the treatment facilities, the

effluent ammonia increased to an annual

average of 3.63 mg/L. As the Lemont Refinery

has improved its ability to process these

heavier crude oils, the effluent ammonia

levels have continued to improve; to 3.50

mg/L in 2006, 2.45 mg/L in 2007, and through

the first six months of 2008 to an all time

low 0.39 mg/L. Clearly overall, the Lemont

Refinery has made progress on consistently

nitrifying.

Finally, Exhibit 5, Figure 3 depicts the mass

of ammonia removed from the Ship Canal on an

annual average compared to the mass

discharged. The net discharge (effluent less

influent) over the past decade has averaged

0054

less than 43 pounds per day, and for 2008 to

date, the Lemont Refinery has removed 29

pounds per day from the Ship Canal, while

only discharging an average 17 pounds per

day.

Receiving Water Way Description

As noted previously, the Lemont Refinery

discharges into the Ship Canal 5.5 miles

upstream of the Lockport Lock and Dam, at

River Mile 296.5. The Ship Canal extends

31.1 miles from its confluence with the Des

Plaines River to the Damen Avenue Bridge in

Chicago (CDM, 2007). The Ship Canal is

typically 200 to 300 ft. Wide with depths

ranging from 27 to 50 ft. (CDM, 2007). The

construction of the Ship Canal includes

vertical walls and steep embankments. The

Ship Canal was erected in approximately 1900,

to “transport human waste and industrial

pollutants away from Lake Michigan” (CDM,

2007). As part of the Use Attainability

Analyses (UAA), CDM conducted a recreation

and navigation survey for 28 days. No

swimming, skiing, tubing, or wading was

0055

observed. A single canoe, sculling or hand

powered boat was observed within the 28 days.

From my own experience in conducting benthic

surveys on the Ship Canal for both the Lemont

Refinery and the MWRDGC, the Ship Canal is

not safe for canoes, sculling or other hand

powered boating activities. When barges

pass, the wake creates literally a wave

machine bouncing off the vertical walls.

Where two waves cross, the amplitude doubles,

and waves get progressively larger reaching

wave heights in excess of five feet before

gradually subsiding.

The aquatic habitat of the portion of the

Ship Canal where the Lemont Refinery is

located was rated as “poor to very poor”

(IEPA, 2006). Overall stream use is

designated as non-support for fish

consumption and aquatic life. The identified

causes of impairment were polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs), irons, oil and grease,

D.O., total nitrogen, and total phosphorus.

Sources included combined sewer overflows,

urban runoff/storm sewers, impacts from

0056

hydrostructure flow regulation/modification,

municipal point source discharges, and other

unknown sources. Ammonia concentrations were

not identified as a source of impairment, due

to the monitored results achieving the water

quality standard.

In addition to the unique structure, the Ship

Canal is home to three coal fired power

plants that provide low cost electricity to

the City of Chicago, the remainder of the

State of Illinois, and elsewhere through the

electrical power grid. The Ship Canal is

effluent dominated with over 70 percent of

its flow on an annual bases from municipal

effluents (IEPA, 2008). This included

wastewater effluent from the Stickney

treatment plant, one of the largest treatment

plants in the world. Essential barge traffic

also flows along this critical artery to a

wide range of industries located along the

Ship Canal.

Another unique factor on the Ship Canal is

the electric barrier installed near the

Lockport Locks. This barrier was installed

0057

to prevent invasive bighead carp from

migrating into the Great Lakes. A second

electric barrier has been constructed but is

yet operational. These electric barriers

will not only prevent the invasive fish from

migrating, but will also prevent other fish

from migrating up or down the Ship Canal at

Lockport, normally not a desirable outcome,

but certainly necessary in light of the goal

to protect the Great Lakes.

The UAA Report (CDM, 2007, page 4-80) notes

that habitat ranged from poor to very poor,

and identified the following factors as

limiting aquatic potential on the Ship Canal:

Silty substrates

Poor substrate material

Little instream cover

Channelization

No sinuosity

There are no backwater areas or tributary

mouths along the Ship Canal. The lack of

habitat diversity along the Ship Canal

clearly limits the diversity of the aquatic

biota.

0058

As noted in Exhibit 5, Figure 1, the total

ammonia concentrations in the Ship Canal are

generally low, below 1 mg/L. Un-ionized

ammonia levels from 2000 to 2002 at four

stations along the Ship Canal and Des Plaines

River are presented in Table 4-1 of the 2008

report, Exhibit 2. Average un-ionized

ammonia concentrations at all four stations

have been consistently less than 0.010 mg/L.

Not only is the un-ionized ammonia levels in

the Ship Canal less than the current water

quality standard, the levels also attain the

proposed changes in the un-ionized ammonia

water quality proposed as part of the Use

Attainability Analysis (UAA) in R08-09.

Mixing Zone

In 1992, Huff & Huff, Inc. Conducted a mixing

zone study on the Lemont Refinery outfall

(see Exhibit 3). The outfall design is

unique in that it is a 15-inch diameter pipe,

extending vertically downward 15 feet below

the surface into the Ship Canal. The result

is a turbulent discharge that is strongly

buoyant due to the entrained air from the

0059

effluent flowing over the weir from the

Treated Water Basin. The Zone of Initial

Dilution (ZID) was measured at 10:1 and only

occupies 100 square feet of the Ship Canal.

There are only 300 gallons of effluent within

the ZID at any one time, with a mean

retention time under 7 seconds.

In 1992 the mixing zone achieved a 40:1

dilution within 60 ft. Downstream, occupying

only 0.05 acres, compared to the allowable 26

acres. With the lower 7-day, 10-year low

flow due to the MWRDGC’s loss of

discretionary diversion from Lake Michigan

and the slightly higher effluent flow today

than in 1992, the mixing zone today achieves

a 36.7:1 dilution within the same 0.05 acres.

Historical Relief Sought

In 1987, the Board granted site-specific

relief to the Lemont Refinery, allowing the

Agency to establish limits based on a

reasonable measure of actual production at

the Refinery. From that order, the Agency

set limits of 749 lb/day ammonia (monthly

average) and 1,648 lb/day (daily maximum).

0060

No concentration limits were imposed in 1987

but at the refinery’s design average flow of

5.79 MGD, these mass limits equate to:

Monthly Average: 15.5 mg/L

Daily Maximum: 34.1 mg/L

The next two rule changes contained the

following concentration limits:

Monthly Average: 9.4 mg/L

Daily Maximum: 26.0 mg/L

The current petition is requesting the

following concentration limits:

Monthly Average1: 6.9 mg/L

Daily Average2: 10.6 mg/L

Clearly, the Lemont Refinery has made

progress in reducing its effluent ammonia

discharged, and the requested relief

continues to make commitments to future

progress. It is important to remember that

this requested relief is for a reduction in

pollutant loading from the current permitted

level.

Receiving Water Impacts

Exhibit 5, Figure 1 and Tables 4-1 and 4-2 of

Exhibit 2 present the historical

0061

concentrations of total ammonia and

un-ionized ammonia in the Ship Canal. The

total ammonia can be described as relatively

low on an annual basis, and the requested

relief will further lower the Lemont

Refinery’s contribution to the downstream

stations. The permitted monthly average

limit will decline by 27 percent, while the

permitted daily maximum will decline by 59

percent.

The un-ionized ammonia in the Ship Canal on

an annual basis is less than 10 percent of

the un-ionized water quality standard, and is

consistently in compliance with the water

quality standard. This adjusted standard

request will further reduce both the total

and un-ionized ammonia levels downstream over

the existing conditions.

As ammonia is oxidized in the receiving

stream, oxygen is consumed. To the extent

the Lemont Refinery’s ammonia is contributing

to lower dissolved oxygen (D.O.) levels, the

requested relief will only improve D.O. from

the existing levels, with the more

0062

restrictive ammonia effluent limits proposed.

According to the UAA Study (CDM, 2007), the

MWRDGC has recorded D.O. levels below the 4.0

mg/L minimum water quality standard at all

seven stations on the Ship Canal. At

Romeoville and Lockport, both downstream of

the Lemont Refinery, 19 percent of the time

D.O. levels below 4.0 mg/L were recorded, the

same percentage of time as at the upstream

location at Cicero Avenue.

The Agency’s proposal is to change the

minimum D.O. to 3.5 mg/L in the Ship Canal.

It is my understanding the Ship Canal does

not currently achieve this 3.5 mg/L D.O.

level during wet weather combined sewer

overflow events.

In 1992, in support of an earlier petition,

Huff & Huff used the MWRDGC’s QUAL 2E model

to predict changes in D.O. from the Lemont

Refinery’s contribution. At a discharge rate

of 744 pounds per day of ammonia from the

Lemont Refinery, the maximum D.O. decline was

0.03 mg/L (maximum loading at low flow

conditions.) With the current requested

0063

relief, the maximum reduction in D.O. will be

closer to 0.02 mg/L at maximum loading and

low flow. The minor level of change in D.O.

is less than can be accuracy of the D.O. test

method for streams (0.1 mg/L). In essence,

no change in D.O. could be measured

attributed to the Lemont Refinery.

Illinois EPA Recommendations

the Agency has recommended that the Board

deny CITGO’s requested Adjusted Standard

relief. Some responses to the Agency’s

technical basis are appropriate.

the Agency cites the Board’s 1972 conclusion

that a reduction in ammonia is necessary if

the Illinois River is to achieve the D.O.

Standard.

While the 36 year old opinion held

significant meaning at the time, more recent

water quality data present different stream

conditions. The attached Exhibit 5, Figure 1

shows that since just 1986, ammonia levels in

the Ship Canal have declined from over 3.6

mg/L to between 0.47 and 0.81 mg/L. There is

no longer an ammonia issue on the Illinois

0064

River. The Agency also overlooks the fact

that the requested relief will further reduce

ammonia concentrations over existing levels

in the Ship Canal.

At this point, CITGO is the only refinery

discharging to the Ship Canal that has yet to

meet the ammonia nitrogen standard at 35 III.

Adm. Code 304.122(b).

This statement is misleading as the Lemont

Refinery is the sole refinery on the Ship

Canal. However, the waterway receives

effluent from one of the largest municipal

wastewater treatment plants in the world,

which contributes significantly more ammonia

on a pounds per day basis than the Lemont

Refinery contributes. Over the past four

years, the Ship Canal upstream of the Lemont

Refinery has contained an average 0.66 mg/L

total ammonia. Even at the 7-day, 10-year

low flow, this translates into 4,640 pounds

per day of ammonia passing by the Lemont

Refinery. The Lemont Refinery over the past

decade has contributed an average 43 pounds

per day of ammonia on a net basis, or less

0065

than one percent of the overall ammonia

loading under low flow conditions. (The

contribution from the Lemont Refinery would

be even less at higher Ship Canal flows.)

CITGO further claims that the discharge from

the refinery doesn't 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.

The economically reasonable and technically

feasible determination by the Board was based

on treating municipal wastewater. The Agency

has supported since the late 1980s, for both

the Lemont Refinery and Mobil Oil relief from

this rule, in part based on the absence of

environmental impact. The Agency’s current

response addresses environmental impact,

0066

including citing the Board’s 1972 opinion on

the D.O. concern, yet claims such concerns

are “irrelevant”. The Lemont Refinery

continues to make progress in reducing its

ammonia discharge. The requested relief will

reduce the permitted daily maximum by 59

percent.

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.

This statement is also misleading. The

Lemont Refinery nitrifies a high percentage

of the time and its effluent also passes the

whole effluent toxicity testing. From

information in the Agency files, the

following could have been provided to the

Board by the Agency:

CONOCOPHILLIPS WOOD RIVER AMMONIA EFFLUENT

LEVELS

Year

0067

Maximum Monthly Average, mg/L

Daily Maximum,

mg/L

2003

2.0

15.2

2004

7.6

2005

5.8

10.6

2006

2.3

3.0

2007

4.2

From 2002 to 2007, the ConocoPhillips Wood

River Refinery has discharged an average 67

pounds of ammonia per day. As the intake

water is groundwater, this 67 pounds per day

can be considered a net discharge, as

compared to the Lemont Refinery net 43 pounds

0068

per day ammonia discharged. It would seem

that the Agency’s use of this other refinery

as an example is totally consistent with the

Lemont Refinery’s performance.

It is clear Conoco-Phillips does not meet a

3.0 mg/L monthly average or a 6.0 mg/L daily

maximum all the time. In fact, the results

look very similar to the Lemont Refinery’s

performance. Simply comparing concentrations

discharged from petroleum refineries can be

misleading, as water conservation practices

vary. The more modern refineries like the

Lemont Refinery discharge less water per

barrel of crude processed than older

refineries.

By seeking 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

maximum.

This statement does not offer an accurate

representation of the relief sought. The

requested relief will result in lower ammonia

0069

concentrations in the Ship Canal than result

from the existed permitted levels, which the

Agency supported in the previous site

specific rule change. The Agency also seems

to imply that ZIDs and mixing zones are

inappropriate. Within the ZID, where a 10:1

dilution occurs within 7 seconds. Assuming

the Lemont Refinery is discharging at the

requested daily maximum limit of 10.61 mg/L,

the ammonia concentration at the edge of the

ZID will be 1.63 mg/L, and at the edge of the

mixing zone, the ammonia concentration will

be 0.91 mg/L. At the 7-day, 10-year low

flow, the increase in ammonia will be from

0.634 mg/L upstream to 0.701 mg/L once

complete mixing has occurred when the

refinery is discharging at its proposed daily

maximum 10.61 mg/L and its design average

flow. Again, all of these values are

reductions from the current permitted levels.

The Lemont Refinery is seeking an adjusted

standard from ammonia effluent limits that

were adopted by the Board solely because of

the elevated ammonia/low dissolved oxygen in

0070

the Illinois River over 36 years ago. No

other large water body in Illinois has

effluent ammonia standards. The conditions

that lead to these unique Illinois River

Basin effluent standards no longer exist

today.

The Ship Canal will thus have an area that is

effectively unavailable as habitat for

sensitive forms of aquatic life.

the Agency should identify which “sensitive

forms of aquatic life” it is referring to.

The Agency in its pre-filed testimony in

R08-09, described the Qualitative Habitat

Evaluation Index on the Ship Canal as

“generally below 22, which are to be expected

in waters with very poor to poor habitual

attributions” (R. Sulski, 2007, page 17,

emphasis added). If the habitat is

controlling the aquatic potential, it is

misleading to state sensitive forms would

enter into the turbulent ZID and mixing zone.

In Adjusted Standard AS96-10, the Board’s

opinion noted that the Agency’s opinion was

that the costs of installing additional

0071

cooling “may not be economically reasonable

when compared to the likelihood of no

improvement in the aquatic community of the

UIW.”3 (AS96-10, Opinion and Order at page

7). The Agency’s position in this ammonia

proceeding is inconsistent with the position

it has taken historically along the waterway

as well as its current position on the

limitations of habitat in the UAA

proceedings.

Adding higher ammonia discharge levels would

only further prevent attainment of dissolved

oxygen standard (emphasis added).

Again, the Agency is confusing the Lemont

Refinery’s request, which is a reduction in

ammonia levels over the current permitted

levels. Attainment of the dissolved oxygen

standard on the Ship Canal will depend on the

elimination of CSO events, not on the Lemont

Refinery’s minor ammonia contribution.

Cost Effectiveness

As presented in Exhibit 5, Figure 3, the

Lemont Refinery has achieved an average

annual total ammonia effluent level of 75

0072

pounds per day over the past decade while the

existing Site Specific Rule Change was in

effect. The ammonia removed from the Ship

Canal by the Lemont Refinery over this same

period has averaged 32 pounds per day, so the

net contribution has been 43 pounds per day.

Assuming that the lowest cost upgrade

identified in the Aware Report (February

2008) will remove the 43 pounds per day

contributed (the refinery becomes ammonia

neutral to the Ship Canal), the annualized

cost would be $3,220,000, or a cost of $205

per additional pound removed.

The Lemont Refinery would also increase its

carbon footprint from the additional energy

consumed with the add-on equipment, should

the adjusted standard be denied. The

operating horsepower for the added equipment

will be 144 HP. Assuming the additional

energy consumed is derived from coal, the

additional pounds per year of carbon dioxide

emitted will be 1,976,000. Or for every

additional pound of ammonia oxidized, 126

pounds of carbon dioxide will be emitted.

0073

Remember, that ammonia oxidation occurs

naturally within the receiving stream,

without carbon dioxide generation.

The $205 per pound of ammonia removal for the

incremental 43 pounds per day can be compared

to the cost for ammonia removal at the

Calumet Water Reclamation Plant of

approximately $3.00 per pound, and the

addition of five side-stream aeration systems

that provide sufficient oxygen to remove a

pound of ammonia at approximately $10.00 per

pound.4 The above unit cost is 68-times

higher for the Lemont Refinery than the

ammonia removal costs required for the

Calumet Water Reclamation Plant, and is

clearly not cost effective.

Derivation of Effluent Limits

The Lemont Refinery is currently operating

under a site-specific rule change that

expires on December 31, 2008. The existing

limits include both load limits based on Best

Available Treatment under the federal

categorical limits and concentration limits.

The existing limits are as follows:

0074

Ammonia Concentration

Monthly Average

9.4 mg/L

Daily Maximum

26.0 mg/L

Using five years of effluent data from June

2002 to May 2007, and the U.S. EPA Technical

Support Document for Water Quality-based

Toxics Control (1985) procedure, at the 95th

percentile the calculated ammonia limits are

6.9 mg/L monthly average and 10.6 mg/L daily

maximum. As noted previously, these are

significant reductions from the current

limits, 27 percent on the monthly and 59

percent on the daily maximum. However,

Section 304.122(b) only applies to

dischargers that discharge more than an

average 100 pounds per day on a monthly

average, and 200 pounds per day on a daily

basis, and the Lemont Refinery is asking that

the above concentration limits only apply

when these mass limits are exceeded. This is

particularly important from a compliance

perspective. If nitrification is lost or

0075

inhibited, ammonia concentrations increase,

and there is minimal corrective action that

can be accomplished in the short term to

lower concentrations. However, the Lemont

Refinery does have the ability to limit the

volume of discharge for a period of time, and

could reduce its discharge rate during

periods when the nitrification process is

upset to stay under the mass limits. From an

environmental perspective, this is a good

approach to minimizing any increase in

ammonia in the Ship Canal, and allows for a

proactive method for refinery personnel to

respond to upsets without violating an

effluent limit.

Summary

The Lemont Refinery has consistently achieved

the Best Available Treatment ammonia limits

since 1987. The average net ammonia

discharged by the refinery to the Ship Canal

since 1999 has been 43 lbs/day, and in 2008

through June the refinery has removed 29

pounds per day from the Ship Canal, while

adding only 17 pounds per day.

0076

The site-specific relief is not required to

achieve the calculated BAT limits, but rather

for the unique Illinois River Basin

regulations that were based on river

conditions that existed in the early 1970s,

but no longer exist today. The Lemont

Refinery has been unable to consistently

achieve the ammonia effluent limits due to

the complex nature of petroleum refining as

well as the sensitive nature of the

nitrification process itself. The Lemont

Refinery has expended over $45,000,000 since

1998, to attempt to further reduce effluent

ammonia levels. The increase in the

processing of heavier crude oils in 2005

clearly set back the refinery’s progress.

However, the steady improvement since 2006

and the record low effluent ammonia levels

through the first six months of 2008 suggest

that the Lemont Refinery is close to

achieving the 3/6 mg/L limits, and a five

year period to fine tune and demonstrate

performance is reasonable. The environment

will benefit from the significant reductions

0077

in ammonia permitted to be discharge while

consumers may benefit from less expensive

petroleum products in Illinois and a reduced

carbon footprint associated with add-on

nitrification equipment at the Lemont

Refinery.

Given that the proposed effluent limits are

lower than the limits determined from the

water quality-based derivation, the requested

effluent limits will be protective of the

Ship Canal’s water quality. The overall

declining ammonia loading on the Illinois

River System and the onset of nitrification

within the Ship Canal itself (due to higher

dissolved oxygen levels) have virtually

eliminated un-ionized ammonia exceedances

downstream of the Lemont Refinery. Dramatic

improvements in the dissolved oxygen level

within the Ship Canal have also occurred over

the past twenty years. These factors support

the Lemont Refinery’s request for

site-specific relief, as no environmental

impacts from the requested relief have been

identified.

0078

JAMES HUFF,

2 called as a witness herein, having been first duly

3 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

5 BY MR. FORT:

09:25:02

Q. Mr. Huff, you've also filed prefiled

7 testimony here?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that document also has attached to

10 it resumes and calculations and exhibits; does it 09:25:08

11 not?

A. And data tables.

Q. And the exhibits and attachments to

14 your testimony are true, accurate and complete to

15 the best of your knowledge and belief?

09:25:24

A. Yes, sir.

CORRECTED TESTIMONY OF ROBERT M. STEIN

My name is Robert M. Stein and I am

affiliated with AWARE Environmental Inc.

(AEI). I have been evaluating the Citgo

Lemont Refinery’s (Lemont Refinery)

wastewater treatment plant with regard to

achieving the State of Illinois ammonia

nitrogen discharge limitations for over 30

0079

years. A summary of the AWARE Environmental

Inc. Professional capabilities, as well as

the vitae for those persons participating in

this evaluation are attached and are

designated as follows: Description of AWARE

Environmental Inc. Exhibit 6 Robert M. Stein

Vitae Exhibit 7 George Tyrian Vitae Exhibit 8

I have specialized in the area of industrial

water pollution control and I have worked

with numerous industries with regard to

biological nitrification and nitrogen

control. I have consulted on over 10

refinery and 30 nitrogen control projects. A

detailed list of projects is included in the

attached vitae.

I have been a contributing author to one of

the standard texts in the environmental

engineering field, have been an adjunct

professor at the University of North

Carolina-Charlotte, I was appointed by the

North Carolina Environmental Management

Commission to serve on the Champion/Pigeon

River Water Quality Variance Review Committee

and I was awarded the TAPPI Roy F. Weston

0080

award for outstanding contributions in

environmental technology. I have authored

numerous articles on industrial environmental

control. A list of publications is included

with my vitae. Several of these were in the

area of nitrogen control.

AEI, in addition to extensive experience in

refinery and nitrogen removal systems in

general, has a detailed understanding of the

Lemont Refinery. The refinery produces

gasoline, a variety of other fuels, coke, and

solvents from crude oil. AEI personnel have

been working with the Lemont Refinery

treatment system for approximately thirty

(30) years.

Process wastewater and stormwater from the

refinery are treated in the refinery’s

wastewater treatment facility. The

wastewater facility includes oil and solids

removal, flow equalization, clarification,

single-stage activated sludge treatment and

final polishing.

The Lemont Refinery has been unable to

consistently and reliably meet the State of

0081

Illinois effluent ammonia nitrogen

concentration standard of 3.0 mg/L. The

Illinois Pollution Control Board granted the

refinery a site specific rule change,

effective through December 31, 2008, which

allows the refinery to meet the U.S. EPA Best

Available Technology Economically Achievable

(BAT) effluent limitations. The refinery has

consistently achieved compliance with the

U.S. EPA BAT effluent limitations.

AWARE Environmental Inc. (AEI) of Charlotte,

North Carolina was retained by the Lemont

Refinery to evaluate current conditions and

potential alternatives for upgrading the

treatment system to meet a 3 mg/l ammonia

nitrogen limit. AEI conducted a conceptual

evaluation of the Lemont Refinery wastewater

treatment system, and the available

alternatives to achieve ammonia removal for a

refinery wastewater. The details of this

evaluation are presented in our report

entitled “Technical Review of Ammonia

Treatment at the Wastewater Treatment Plant –

Citgo Petroleum Corporation, Lemont

0082

Refinery,” attached to this testimony as

Exhibit 9. The primary objectives of this

evaluation were to:

1. Determine if the present wastewater

treatment system is consistent with U.S. EPA

BAT criteria;

2. Determine if the wastewater treatment

system operating conditions are conducive to

biological nitrification; and

3. Evaluate alternative ammonia removal

technologies and the cost of those

technologies to determine if changes in the

present wastewater treatment system are

warranted as part of a program to achieve

compliance with the 3 mg/l ammonia nitrogen

criteria.

The results of this evaluation indicate that

Lemont Refinery has a wastewater treatment

system which exceeds BAT criteria and which

allows the refinery to comply with U.S. EPA

refinery discharge regulations. The long

term performance data has demonstrated that

the refinery wastewater treatment facility

has achieved compliance with the current mass

0083

based limitations for ammonia nitrogen

contained in the NPDES permit, but that the

refinery has not been able to consistently

meet a 3.0 mg/l ammonia nitrogen limit as per

the Illinois regulations.

A review of the wastewater treatment

technologies employed at the other Illinois

Refineries was conducted. These refineries

were Conoco-Phillips, Roxana, IL;

Exxon-Mobil, Joliet, IL; and Marathon,

Robinson, IL. The wastewater treatment

processes employed by these Refineries are

very similar to those utilized at the Lemont

Refinery.

A review of the activated sludge treatment

plant was performed with regard to factors

which control the ability of a biological

treatment facility to achieve nitrification.

These factors include food to microorganisms

ratio (F/M), sludge age, dissolved oxygen

concentration, temperature, pH, and

alkalinity. The review indicates that these

parameters have been maintained in the ranges

favorable to nitrification. However, in

0084

spite of this, the refinery treatment

facility has been unable to meet the 3.0 mg/l

ammonia nitrogen standard on a consistent

basis.

We found that Lemont Refinery has maintained

an ongoing optimization program and this

program has resulted in improved ammonia

nitrogen removal. The program has been

expanded to address changes in the petroleum

refinery industry. The refinery has spent

over $45,000,000 over the last ten years on

capital projects related to ammonia control

and reduction.

As a result of changes in the crude quality,

Lemont refinery has experienced a five-fold

increase in wastewater treatment chemical

addition costs over the last 4 years. Lemont

refinery has and is continuing to conduct

research which addresses the environmental

impacts caused by crude quality fluctuations.

Crude quality fluctuations confirm AEI’s

previous analysis which indicated that the

capability of the wastewater treatment system

is limited, in large part, due to the

0085

inherent variability of refinery wastewater.

There are a large number of treatment

technologies which can be utilized for

ammonia removal. These include biological

treatment technologies, land treatment,

wetlands polishing, and physical/chemical

treatment. As part of my review of treatment

alternatives for upgrade of the Lemont

Refinery wastewater treatment plant to

achieve increased ammonia removal I

considered our experience in design and

operation of nitrogen technologies along with

a detailed review of published data on

technologies for ammonia removal. The most

commonly used approach for ammonia nitrogen

removal is biological nitrification.

Biological nitrification is typically a two

step process as follows:

Nitrosomonas

2 NH4 + 3O2 2 NO2- + 4H+ + 2 H2O

Nitrobacter

2 NO2- + O2 2NO3-

Total Reaction

NH4+ + 2O2 NO3- + 2H+ + H2O

0086

It is in the biological nitrification process

where refineries have experienced problems in

providing consistent ammonia nitrogen

removal. This is because biological

nitrification is a very sensitive process.

The cell growth rate is much lower for the

ammonia nitrogen organisms (nitrifiers) than

for carbonaceous degradation (COD) organisms.

In a typical activated sludge aeration basin,

nitrifies represent only 2-5% of the aeration

tank biomass. The nitrification growth rate

is more sensitive to temperature changes than

carbonaceous organism and nitrifiers are more

susceptible to chemicals discharges. This

can occur in a number of ways:

1. Inhibition – Nitrifiers continue to grow

but at a slower rate

2. Toxicity – Loss of nitrifiers

EPA has published a listing of organics and

metals which inhibit the organic activated

sludge process and which affect nitrification

(EPA-430/9-76-017a). This document indicates

there are significantly more compounds which

affect nitrification than carbonaceous

0087

organisms and where a compound affects both

it typically affects nitrifiers at a much

lower dosage (I.E. phenol affects

carbonaceous organisms at 200 mg/l and

nitrifiers at 4-10 mg/l).

Because of the sensitivity of the nitrifying

organisms in the degradation of refinery

wastewaters and the long term variability

which has occurred in achieving ammonia

removal at the Lemont Refinery, process

technologies considerations were based on

approaches which could minimize potential

upsets and provide the best mechanism for

biological nitrogen removal. This included

single stage activated sludge (an increase in

the activated sludge aeration basin size or

addition of a media to the existing aeration

basin to obtain additional biomass). Some of

the media applications include Kaldnes,

Linpor, Hydroxyl or Agar or the addition of

supplemental specialized bacteria to a single

stage basin. However, these alternatives

were rejected because of the sensitivity of

nitrifiers to the refinery wastewater. Since

0088

the existing treatment plant has been

experiencing problems with loss of

nitrification and the fixed media type

organisms are subject to sluffing, the

addition of fixed media or increased

retention time does not provide the best

alternative to minimize potential upsets.

An alternative approach could be providing a

fixed bed type system ahead of the activated

sludge system as a pretreatment. However,

this still presents a problem since the fixed

bed bacteria would be more sensitive to

upsets and would not do as good as job of

removing the carbonous materials. There is a

very high probability of sluffing of the

organisms which could upset the activated

sludge process.

In reviewing alternatives for upgrading a

single activated sludge system, we felt that

the two most promising alternatives were a

single stage activated sludge with a powered

activated carbon supplement or a single stage

activated sludge membrane bioreactor. The

powered activated carbon supplement includes

0089

the advantage of the plastic type media in

that it provides a location where additional

bacteria can grow however the powdered

activated carbon also adsorbs materials that

may be toxic or inhibitory to the nitrifying

organisms. This process allows concentration

of trace nutrients at the carbon surface and

provides bulk addition to improve sludge

settling properties.

The membrane bioreactor technology is one of

the newest approaches for improving

biological nitrification. With the membrane

there can be improved solids liquids

separation and the treatment plant is able to

operate at significantly higher MLSS levels

than in a conventional treatment plant

(typically twice the normal MLSS levels).

Specifically this allows:

1) The retention time of the biomass can be

increased to create favorable conditions for

normal growth of the nitrifying organisms;

2) Better and more reliable effluent quality

as compared to a conventional processes; and

3) Easier control and operation of the

0090

system since the system would not longer need

a secondary clarifier.

In addition to considering a single stage

system we also considered two stage

biological treatment. In a two stage

process, carbonaceous removal is achieved in

the first stage. This is normally an

activated sludge process. The first stage

reduces the concentration of toxic and

inhibitory materials. There are two basic

second stage alternatives. One is to have a

2nd stage activated sludge system and the

other is use of a fixed media system for the

2nd stage. The reason for selecting a fixed

media system for the 2nd stage is that the

nitrifying organisms tend to grow slower than

carbonous organisms, they do not settle as

well and therefore, if the inhibitory or

toxic materials can be reduced in the 1st

stage than a 2nd stage fixed film system

provides a very good mechanism for biological

treatment. The poor settling organisms will

attach to the media.

Based on the analysis of all alternatives,

0091

four of the most viable alternatives were

selected for preliminary process design and

budgetary cost estimates. The four

alternatives selected include powdered

activated carbon addition (PACT), a two stage

activated sludge fixed media biological

treatment, membrane bioreactors, and

breakpoint chlorination. Addition of a fixed

media biological reactor would be the most

cost-effective alternative. The fixed media

system would utilize a rotating biological

contractor (RBC) and would have an estimated

capital cost of $13,500,000 and an estimated

annual operating cost of $1,220,000. The

estimated total annualized cost for the

addition of the fixed media reactor system

over a ten (10) year period at 8 percent

interest is $3,220,000/year.

Even with the ammonia removal upgrades, the

ability of the treatment system to

consistently meet the 3.0 mg/l ammonia

nitrogen standard is uncertain. Based on the

significant cost of upgrading the system, and

the uncertainty that the upgraded system

0092

would achieve consistent compliance with the

3.0 mg/l ammonia nitrogen standard, upgrading

the treatment system with additional

treatment technologies for ammonia removal is

not justified.

Our findings indicate that the Lemont

refinery has an approach which is properly

directed to improving treatment plant

performance, particularly as it relates to

ammonia removal. We recommend that Lemont

Refinery continue its ongoing research

studies and projects designed to optimize the

existing wastewater treatment system. These

efforts should be directed toward obtaining

the maximum possible ammonia removal on a

consistent basis. Continued development of

operational data under the varying conditions

inherent with refinery wastes will help to

improve the performance of the system, and

will allow the maximum ammonia removal

capability of the system to be achieved.

In conjunction with the preparation of

testimony I received and reviewed a copy of

the June 20, 2008 document entitled

0093

“Recommendation of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency” related to the Lemont

Refinery ammonia standard request. I offer

the following comments to information

contained in that document:

1. Item #13 on Page 5. In this section it

is indicated that many expenditures which

were credited as improvements to the

treatment plant were not directly related to

ammonia nitrogen. I feel that this is not

true since many of the items noted were

implemented to improve the overall treatment

plant performance and the overall treatment

plant performance improvements allowed the

treatment plant to provide increased

biological nitrification. For example, gas

floatation pretreats and removes oils and

solids prior to the activated sludge system.

Oils can inhibit nitrification and the lower

levels of these materials improves biological

nitrification. In addition, the cost of the

Purge treatment unit “PTU”, installed as part

of the FCC consent decree, were largely

caused by the need to consistently provide

0094

ammonia nitrogen removal. Before

installation of the FCC unit, the Refinery

was far below BAT treatment standards. The

PTU wastewater treatment processes would

likely not have been needed had the ammonia

rule - or the ammonia site specific rule -

not been in effect.

2. Item #15 on Page 7. There is a

discussion that when the board adopted the

provisions of the ammonia nitrogen standard

there was extensive testimony as to the

availability of methods for reducing ammonia

in the effluent and it was determined that

nitrification can be satisfactory

accomplished for a reasonable price by a

second stage of biological treatment. It

indicated that the evidence is clear that for

too long, oxygen demand exerted by ammonia in

DOMESTIC waste has been overlooked.

We feel that there is adequate demonstration

that domestic wastewater treatment plants can

achieve biological nitrification but this is

not the case for the treatment of refinery

wastewaters. Two documents which justify

0095

this finding are the “Development Document

for Effluent Limitation Guidelines in New

Source Performance Standards for the

Petroleum Refinery Point Source Category”,

April 1974, developed by the US Environmental

Protection Agency and the “Develop Document

for Effluent Guidelines New Source

Performance Standards and Pretreatment

Standards for the Petroleum Refinery Point

Source Category”, October 1982, developed by

the effluent guidelines division of the US

Environmental Protection Agency. In both of

these documents, there is clear indication

that the petroleum refinery industry does not

have the technology for economically

achieving a 3 mg/l effluent standard on a

consistent basis. In 1974, the EPA data

showed that an activated sludge system for an

petroleum refinery can expect to produce an

effluent ammonia of 1 to 100 mg/l and in the

1982 development document the EPA indicated

that for direct dischargers in the petroleum

refinery industry (Table 6-1) that the

current BPT for ammonia nitrogen is 6.8 mg/l.

0096

These data indicate that although the board

may have had extensive testimony on methods

of removing ammonia nitrogen in domestic

effluents the technology was fundamentally

different for ammonia nitrogen in the

refining industry.

3. Item #15 on Page 7. It is noted that

Citgo is the only refinery discharging to the

Ship Canal that has yet to meet the ammonia

nitrogen standard in the Illinois

administrative code. I am not aware of any

other refineries that discharge to the Ship

Canal.

4. Items #17 and 18 on Page 8. The Agency

quotes an excerpt from a board decision in

1972 out of context. The quote would appear

to have the board as specifically stating

that nitrification can be satisfactory

accomplished at a reasonable price. We

question the use of reasonable price for

refineries in light of the specific nitrogen

reduction which is proposed to be achieved.

Table 3-10 of the AWARE report (Exhibit 9)

shows that the average effluent ammonia from

0097

January 2006 through October 2007 was 122 lbs

NH3-N/day. At an average flow of 7.13 MGD

and at a 3 mg/l ammonia nitrogen limit, the

refinery would be allowed to discharge 178

lbs NH3-N/day. Therefore, the long term

ammonia discharge is less than the projected

limit. The technical and economic

justification to spend an annual cost in

excess of 3,000,000 to achieve very little

addition nitrogen removal and a level that is

not expected to consistently achieve the 3

mg/l standard is questionable.

5. Item #19 on Page 9. This notes that

Citgo is the only Illinois refinery not

meeting the ammonia limit. Based on a review

of the available NPDES data, the Conoco

Philips Refinery is only in compliance with

the 3 mg/l limit approximately 90% of the

time and the Exxon Mobil Refinery has been in

compliance only since 2005.

6. Item #20 on Page 9. The report questions

if the refinery has adequate retention time

to comply with the effluent standards. It

should be noted that the retention time at

0098

the Conoco Philips is 1.31 days and that

refinery, as previously noted, has only been

in compliance approximately 90% of the time.

The F/M as noted in the AEI report at the

Citgo Refinery is adequate for biological

nitrification and on a long term basis

achieves a very low effluent ammonia

concentration. One item noted in the EPA

development document related to refineries

are “the effluent from a properly designed

and operated treatment plant changes

continually due to the variety of factors.

Changes in production mix, production rate,

and reaction chemistry influence the

composition of raw wasteload and therefore,

its treatability. Changes in biological

factors influence the efficiency of the

treatment process”. Therefore, we feel that

there are a number of factors which effect

the performance of a refinery treatment plant

to achieve nitrification and that these have

a direct effect on the ability of the

treatment plant to consistently achieve

nitrification.

0099

7. Item #20 on Page 10. It was noted that

Citgo did not consider additional aeration

basin or additional clarifier to provide

longer detention time. It should be noted in

the AEI report (in Table 4-6 of Exhibit 9)

that the overflow rate in the clarification

system is lower than in the Exxon Mobil and

Conoco Philips refineries. Therefore

additional clarification would not

necessarily make any significant improvement.

We looked at additional detention time in

that one of the processes selected (2-stage

biological system where we used a fixed film

system as the second stage). This provides

additional detention time and also provides

what we feel is one of the best cases for

providing good treatment in that a 2-stage

system provides reduction of toxic and

inhibitory materials in the 1st stage and a

2nd stage a fixed film type process provides

a very good media for growth of nitrifying

organisms.

8. Item #24 on Page 11. The ammonia

concentrations in the permit should not

0100

affect the long term average ammonia

discharge. As previously noted the long term

ammonia discharge from the refinery in

2006-2007 was 122 lbs/day. This is actually

significantly less on a long term basis than

the proposed permitting levels. Therefore,

we do not feel that there is any significant

additional effect on aquatic life. This also

applies to Item 25 on Page 12 which questions

the additional ammonia effecting DO in the

Ship Canal since on a long term average the

ammonia discharge is less than would be

permitted under the 3 mg/l regulation.

9. Item #37 on Page 16. The other

refineries have not been able to consistently

achieve the 3 mg/l level. We disagreed, as

previously stated, that the additional

ammonia removal will be cost effective.

I will now summarize our findings which have

resulted in these conclusions:

1. COMPARISON OF LEMONT REFINERY WITH U.S.

EPA BAT TECHNOLOGY

a) The U.S. EPA has developed a model plant

for sour water strippers. The Lemont

0101

Refinery has maintained an on-going program

with the objective of improving stripper

performance. The sour water stripper data

from the last ten years shows that ammonia

removal efficiencies have been observed in

excess of 96.8 percent, and monthly average

efficiencies have been observed in excess of

99 percent. This type of performance is

indicative of the facility’s diligent program

of improving performance. This represents

performance well exceeding the U.S. EPA model

refinery objective and continues to show

ongoing improvement.

b) The U.S. EPA developed a BAT model for a

refinery wastewater treatment system. Our

analysis of the Lemont Refinery wastewater

treatment system indicates that it exceeds

the BAT technology for refinery wastewater

treatment as presented in the 1982 U.S. EPA

“Development Document”. The BAT criteria

used as the basis for the U.S. EPA effluent

limitations guidelines are compared with the

refinery wastewater treatment system in Table

1. As shown in Table 1 the refinery

0102

treatment system contains all of the BAT

components outlined in the U.S. EPA. In

addition to complying with the U.S. EPA model

technology, the facility has continually made

improvements and upgrades to its wastewater

management program to reduce effluent ammonia

and improve the overall performance of the

treatment system. Based on the continued

improvement in effluent quality it appears

that these improvements and upgrades have

been successful.

c) We have found that the Refinery

wastewater treatment system performance is

compliant with the U.S. EPA BAT effluent

limits for ammonia. The current NPDES

ammonia limits are 1005.73 lbs/day average

and 2212.65 lbs/day maximum based upon

updated production data. An evaluation of

the data from January 2006 through October

2007 shows that the effluent ammonia has

consistently been less than BAT levels with

an average ammonia nitrogen discharge over

this period of 122 lbs/day. The refinery

produces a better quality effluent ammonia

0103

and the U.S. EPA BAT ammonia effluent limits

are achieved 100 percent of the time, even

under extreme and adverse conditions.

2) ANALYSIS OF TREATMENT PROGRAM

A number of parameters have been identified

which affect biological nitrification. These

parameters are: F/M (food to mass ratio);

sludge age, aeration basin pH, aeration basin

temperature; and aeration basin dissolved

oxygen concentration.

Table 2 presents an analysis of normal

requirements for nitrification and the

operating levels at the Lemont Refinery. As

can be noted, the Lemont Refinery has

consistently provided equal or better

capabilities.

TABLE 1

COMPARISON OF BAT GUIDELINES WITH LEMONT

REFINERY’S

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM

BAT Guidelines

Lemont Refinery System

Sour water strippers

Sour water strippers provide in excess 96%

0104

average ammonia removal efficiency

Flow equalization

Two (2) 4.6 MG process wastewater storage

tanks providing approximately 4.2 day

equalization capacity in addition to a 52 MG

stormwater capacity which provide 14 days

equalization and a 0.25 MG equalization tank

Initial oil and solids removal

CPI separators

Additional oil and solids removal in the two

4.6 MG process wastewater storage tanks

Additional oil and solids removal

100 ft diameter primary clarifier with

polymer addition

Induced gas flotation

Biological treatment

Single-stage activated sludge system

Filtration or other final polishing

16 MG final polishing pond

TABLE 2

TYPICAL OPERATING RANGES FOR NITRIFICATION

Parameter

Optimum Range

Lemont Refinery

0105

Operation(2)

F/M, lb BOD5/lb MLVSS-day

Less than 0.3

0.056 – 0.287(3)

Sludge Age, days

> 10

13.1 - > 100

D.O., mg/L

2.0(1)

3.3 – 7.0

7.2 – 9.0

7.0 – 8.2

Temperature, ºF

68 – 100

76 - 97

NOTES: (1) Average D.O. should be > 2.0 mg/L.

Minimum D.O. should be > 1.5 mg/L.

(2) Based on monthly average data.

(3) F/M exceeded this range in June and

July 1994. Overall average F/M over

operating period is approximately 0.150

lb/lb-day.

3)ANALYSIS OF TECHNOLOGIES UTILIZED AT

0106

ILLINOIS REFINERIES

In conjunction with the review of alternative

technologies to upgrade the Lemont Refinery,

a review of the treatment technologies in

place at other Illinois refineries was

conducted. The refineries included:

Conoco-Phillips Roxana, IL

Exxon-Mobil Joliet, IL

Marathon Robinson, IL

A summary of this analysis is presented in

Table 3.

This analysis indicated that the treatment

technologies at all the Illinois refineries

are very similar. All have preliminary oil

separation followed by an additional

oil-water separator using a gas flotation

process. The biological treatment process is

activated sludge. The overflow rates on the

secondary clarifiers are similar. The only

difference in the treatment systems appears

to be the activated sludge retention time.

The Conoco-Phillips and Marathon refineries

have a longer retention time than the Lemont

Refinery. The Exxon-Mobil and Lemont

0107

Refinery have similar activated sludge

retention times. A review of the effluent

data shows that the Conoco-Phillips Refinery

has not been in consistent compliance with

the 3 mg/l ammonia standard. The Exxon-Mobil

Refinery exceeded the 3 mg/l limit prior to

2005.

TABLE 3

COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT AT

ILLINOIS REFINERIES

AEI JOB NO. N356-01

Refinery

System

Conoco

Phillips

Exxon

Mobil

Lemont

Marathon

Initial Oil and Solids Removal

Oil/Water Separator

API Separator

Two-4.6 MG Process Separation Tanks

API Separator

0108

Additional Oil and Solids Removal

Dissolved Nitrogen Flotation

Air Flotation

Induced Gas Flotation

Dissolved Nitrogen Flotation

Biological Treatment

Activated sludge with 1.31 days detention

time and 450 gpd/ft2 clarifier overflow

Activated sludge with 10.9 hrs detention time

(upgrading to 19.4 hrs). Clarifier overflow

392 gpd/ft2

Activated sludge with 7.7 hrs detention time

and 382 gpd/ft2 clarifier overflow

Activated sludge with 1.54 days detention

time and 227 gpd/ft2 clarifier overflow

Tertiary Treatment

Polishing ponds 5.4 mg

Polishing pond 4.9 mg

Polishing in treated water basin (polishing

pond) 16 mg

Final filtration

4) ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE REMOVAL OF

AMMONIA

The AEI analysis of the Lemont Refinery

0109

treatment facility indicated that the

refinery has been unable to provide

consistent biological nitrification.

Consequently alternative treatment

technologies or variations of the biological

treatment technology were examined to

determine the feasibility of achieving the

State of Illinois ammonia limitations of 3

mg/L. The alternative technologies which

were evaluated included:

1. Biological Treatment

Technologies/Adaptations

a. Single-stage activated sludge.

b. Single-stage activated sludge with the

supplement of specialized bacteria.

c. Single-stage activated sludge with a

powdered activated carbon supplement.

d. Single-stage activated sludge membrane

bioreactor.

e. Two-stage activated sludge.

f. Two-stage biological treatment using

activated sludge for the first stage and a

fixed media system for the second stage.

2. Land Treatment

0110

3. Wetlands Polishing

4. Physical – Chemical Technologies

a. Ion exchange.

b. Air stripping.

c. Steam stripping.

d. Breakpoint chlorination.

Based on a review of available literature,

previous studies on Lemont Refinery

wastewater, and our personal experience with

similar wastewaters, this list of

technologies was reduced to the four with the

greatest potential for achieving the Illinois

3.0 mg/l ammonia nitrogen standard on a

consistent basis. The four technologies

selected for consideration at Lemont Refinery

are:

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.

0111

Each technology was subjected to a rigorous

and thorough evaluation to evaluate its

potential for achieving the objective

mentioned above.

Our analysis indicated that the least

expensive approach for compliance was a

second stage fixed media biological treatment

unit. The annualized cost for the fixed

media system over 10 years at percent

interest is $3,220,000.

Additional ammonia removal may be achievable

by upgrading the treatment plant with

additional treatment steps such as a fixed

media biological treatment unit. However,

this would be at significant cost, and it is

uncertain that the upgraded system would

achieve consistent compliance with the 3 mg/L

ammonia nitrogen standard. Therefore,

upgrading the treatment system with

additional treatment technologies for ammonia

removal is not justified at this time.

SUMMARY

In summary, an analysis of the Lemont

Refinery wastewater collection and treatment

0112

system was conducted to determine if the

system continues to be a BAT facility. The

results of this analysis indicate that the

refinery has a state-of-the-art wastewater

treatment system which exceeds BAT criteria

and allows compliance with all U.S. EPA

refinery discharge regulations and with the

current NPDES permit for the facility. The

wastewater treatment system has been operated

under conditions which are optimum to achieve

biological nitrification. There have been

significant changes in crude supply and the

refinery is processing heavier crudes, the

wastewater treatment program has been

diligent and has continued to provide

excellent performance. However, the system

has been unable to consistently achieve

biological nitrification. The data has

demonstrated that the wastewater treatment

system is not able to consistently provide

biological nitrification to meet the 3 mg/L

ammonia nitrogen standard as required in the

Illinois regulations.

The Lemont Refinery has continued its program

0113

to optimize its treatment system. This

appears to be the proper direction for

improving wastewater treatment performance.

Alternative add-on, end-of-pipe

treatment technology has been evaluated and

will have an annualized cost of $3,220,000.

There is no guarantee that installing this

technology will result in compliance with the

3 mg/L ammonia nitrogen limitation.

Therefore, we recommend that Lemont Refinery

continue its ongoing wastewater treatment

improvement programs. These efforts should

be directed toward obtaining the maximum

possible ammonia removal on a consistent

basis. Continued development of operational

data under the varying conditions inherent

with refinery wastes will help to improve the

performance of the system, and will allow the

maximum ammonia removal capability of the

system to be achieved.

ROBERT STEIN,

22 called as a witness herein, having been first duly

23 sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

0114

DIRECT EXAMINATION

2 BY MR. FORT:

Q. Mr. Stein, same questions. You had

4 filed prefiled testimony in this matter; correct?

A. Yes.

09:25:31

Q. And we found that there was a typo or

7 dropped words in your testimony; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And we now have corrected testimony

10 for you; correct?

09:25:39

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. And the corrected testimony also

13 relies upon the same exhibits that you had in your

14 prefiled testimony?

A. Yes, it does.

09:25:46

Q. And is that information all true,

17 accurate and complete to the best of your knowledge

18 and belief?

A. Yes, it is.

MR. FORT: We have two other exhibits 09:25:58

to add. These are probably more in the

nature of -- off the record.

(WHEREUPON, discussion was had

off the record.)

0115

THE HEARING OFFICER: We are back on

the record. And Mr. Tesher is going to read

the exhibits into the record, so it won't be

too confusing down the road.

MR. TESHER: We have the three

09:31:36

prefiled testimonies on Exhibit 1 in this

document here (indicating). This is

Exhibit 2 here (indicating).

Exhibit 3 is in three parts, due

to size, it's right here (indicating.)

09:31:49

Exhibits 4 through 8 are in this document

here (indicating).

Exhibit 9 is here (indicating).

And then, newly filed today, we have

Exhibit 10, the corrected testimony of

09:32:00

Bob Stein. Exhibit 11 (indicating), this is

a provisional variance from 2005.

And Exhibit 12 (indicating), this

is the final order and the first and second

notice from the 1998 rulemaking that's

09:32:14

R98-14.

THE HEARING OFFICER: All right.

Thank you, Mr. Tesher.

Mr. Boltz, any objection?

0116

MR. BOLTZ: No objection, Your Honor.

THE HEARING OFFICER: These are

entered into evidence.

(WHEREUPON, said documents,

previously marked Exhibit

09:32:38

Nos. 1-12, for identification, were

offered and received in evidence.)

MR. BOLTZ: Your Honor, one point of

clarification, if I may. At some point

within their testimony, various individuals 09:32:46

have generally referred on the Agency not

meeting necessarily with Citgo, with the

petitioner, during the course of the

proceedings. The Agency does generally

object on the basis of relevancy on that

09:33:00

issue --

THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Well --

MR. BOLTZ: -- for your notation.

THE HEARING OFFICER: The Board will

so note your observation.

09:33:08

Mr. Fort, how do you want to...

MR. FORT: I have a couple of

questions for each of the witnesses --

THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay.

0117

MR. FORT: -- and then the Agency or

the Board or whomever can go ahead.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Go ahead,

Mr. Fort. Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

09:33:24

6 BY MR. FORT:

Q. Ms. Postel, we've marked as an

8 exhibit, I think it's No. 11, the provisional

9 variance from late 2004.

Were you involved in that

09:33:33

11 proceeding?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you describe to the Board what was

14 going on, why that application was made?

A. We had a process upset and we lost

09:33:39

16 nitrification in our wastewater treatment plant. We

17 didn't feel that we would be able to meet our

18 permanent limits.

So we worked with the Agency, and

20 filed a provisional variance for ammonia. And then, 09:34:00

21 upon receiving a request, we detailed, you know,

22 what the operational issue was and sent that to the

23 Agency. And the provisional variance was granted.

Q. And those kinds of conditions happen

0118

1 other times that you don't even seek a provisional

2 variance?

MR. BOLTZ: Objection. Leading.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Overruled.

5 BY THE WITNESS:

09:34:25

A. Correct.

THE HEARING OFFICER: You may answer.

8 BY THE WITNESS:

A. Correct.

THE HEARING OFFICER: We have to keep 09:34:31

our voices up. We don't have the mics on.

Maybe at 10:00 we will. Thank you.

13 BY MR. FORT:

Q. And to the extent there are upsets or

15 other variations, where might we find the data that 09:34:47

16 would reflect that?

A. It would be in Bob and in Jim's data

18 tables, where we would see the ammonia spikes and --

19 indicating that we were having operational upsets.

Q. Has the refinery had upsets from time 09:35:04

21 to time over the past ten years?

A. Yes.

Q. How consistently is the refinery able

24 to nitrify?

0119

A. If we don't have operational upsets,

2 we can consistently operate the ammonia, you know,

3 less than two parts per million on a routine basis.

Q. What kind of things is the refinery

5 doing in the last 12, 18 months or so in order to 09:35:31

6 improve its nitrification?

A. We began segregating the desalter

8 water from other process wastewaters, we

9 continuously removed solids from the process water

10 tanks, we now do MEA -- well, we're doing amine

09:35:50

11 management through operational checks. We have

12 added an antifoam to the MEA system, which reduces

13 the carryover potential for amine into the

14 wastewater treatment system.

Q. These are ongoing --

09:36:18

MS. LIU: May I interject? Would you

define MEA, please?

MS. POSTEL: Monoethylene amine.

MS. LIU: Thank you.

20 BY MR. FORT:

09:36:22

Q. What is MEA?

A. It's used to scrub H2S out of the

23 refinery gases and waters.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Keep our voices

0120

up, I'm sorry.

2 BY MR. FORT:

Q. And even though you've been doing all

4 these things, do you feel confident that the

5 refinery could meet the three milligram per liter, 09:36:44

6 six milligram per liter standard on a continuous

7 basis?

A. No, I do not.

MR. FORT: Can we enter her testimony

as if read?

09:36:57

THE HEARING OFFICER: Sure. I can do

that.

For the record, her testimony is

entered as if read into evidence. Was that

exhibit -- well, it's the prefiled testimony. 09:37:07

Exhibit 1, is it?

MR. FORT: Well, Exhibit 1 is actually

the answer to the Board's questions or the

Hearing Officer's questions. Her prefiled

testimony really is a separate testimony that 09:37:22

we'd like to have entered as if read.

THE HEARING OFFICER: So I don't have

that up here?

MR. TESHER: That first document.

0121

THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes.

MR. TESHER: On the back of it.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Tesher, this

is exhibit -- it's a little confusing. It's

a little out of my -- the way I like to do 09:37:52

things.

MR. TESHER: The prefiled testimony is

the prefiled testimony. And then the

exhibits are to the prefiled testimony.

So this is just her testimony at 09:38:00

the front, and then behind it you have Jim's

and Bob's testimony. The prefiled testimony

as prefiled.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. So we're

marking this as Exhibit 1. I don't

09:38:16

understand -- I would like to get all the

prefiled testimony as an exhibit.

MR. TESHER: That's not how we had it

numbered.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes.

09:38:26

MR. TESHER: We didn't --

THE HEARING OFFICER: It's foreign to

me.

MR. BOLTZ: It's the only way we can

0122

appropriately refer to it.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes.

MR. TESHER: Why don't we call that A?

MR. FORT: Well, how do you want to do

it? I think there's only one --

09:38:38

THE HEARING OFFICER: Tell me,

Mr. Fort. Exhibit -- right now --

MR. FORT: Why don't we go off the

record.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's go off the 09:38:48

record, Sharon.

(WHEREUPON, discussion was had

off the record.)

(WHEREUPON, certain documents were

marked Petitioner's Exhibit

Nos. 13-15, for identification, as

of 8/20/08.)

THE HEARING OFFICER: We're back on

the record.

What we're going to do is mark

09:41:54

Ms. Postal's prefiled testimony as

Exhibit 13, Mr. Huff's prefiled testimony as

Exhibit 14, and Mr. Stein's prefiled

testimony as Exhibit 15. But he did file a

0123

corrected prefiled testimony and that is

marked, I believe, as Exhibit 10.

MR. TESHER: That's correct.

THE HEARING OFFICER: All right.

Thanks for your patience.

09:42:18

All right. Mr. Fort, I think

you're still on --

MR. FORT: Thank you, Mr. Hearing

Officer, for getting this record in order.

10 BY MR. FORT:

09:42:30

Q. Mr. Huff, can you elaborate --

MR. FORT: Now, we also have

Mr. Huff's testimony as prefiled, as if read?

THE HEARING OFFICER: Correct.

MR. FORT: I'm trying to picture in my 09:42:41

head how the flow is going to look.

MR. BOLTZ: Well, maybe we should slow

down here. Do we want to go through each

witness one at a time, have a direct, have a

cross and then go to the next? Or -- and

09:42:52

whatever pleases, Your Honor.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, what's

going to happen, I think -- because our

technical personnel will probably ask a

0124

question. Usually it's kind of a tag team,

like, Ms. Postal won't know the answer,

Mr. Stein may or Mr. Huff, so...

MR. BOLTZ: Sure.

MR. FORT: From our standpoint -- at 09:43:17

least it will be easier if, as the Hearing

Officer has said, because the answer to a

question might be another witness. So by

doing it as a panel, we get substantive

answers flowing together in response to a

09:43:30

question.

THE HEARING OFFICER: I agree.

MR. RAO: Especially with Mr. Huff and

Mr. Stein, if there's overlap in their...

MR. BOLTZ: I'm sorry, I'm just

09:43:41

wondering -- I mean, are we evaluating each

witness' knowledge or Citgo as a party? Do

you see what I'm saying? That's my only

concern.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Uh-huh.

09:43:52

MR. BOLTZ: But however --

THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, I mean,

you'll be able to read from the record who

says what.

0125

MR. BOLTZ: Okay.

THE HEARING OFFICER: And that's the

way I -- just the standards usually go. It's

more of an informational thing.

MR. BOLTZ: Well, that's fine.

09:44:04

THE HEARING OFFICER: State your

objection, if need be.

R. BOLTZ: Fine.

MR. RAO: And we'll let the Agency go

first. Hopefully you'll ask all their

09:44:11

questions.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Fort?

MR. FORT: So we are going to put in

the record now -- Ms. Postal's testimony will

appear in the transcript as if read. And

09:44:29

then Mr. Huff's.

And should I ask a couple

clarifying questions for Mr. Huff now before

we put in Mr. Stein's as if read?

THE HEARING OFFICER: Sure. If you 09:44:41

so choose.

MR. FORT: Just --

THE HEARING OFFICER: And then I

can -- Sharon will just write this into the

0126

record.

2 BY MR. FORT:

Q. Mr. Huff, can you talk a little bit

4 more about your procedure for the 95 percent

5 confluence interval and how you picked those levels? 09:45:05

A. The USEPA has a document called the

7 Technical Support Document. And that document

8 outlines USEPA protocol for deriving effluent limits

9 based on existing effluent quality.

So it's a statistical analysis, 09:45:30

11 it's typically along normal distribution. And the

12 individual daily maximum value is typically derived

13 at 95th percentile of the entire data set.

When you derive the monthly

15 average, that can be either a 95th percentile of

09:45:51

16 value of -- around the mean values or the 99th

17 percentile. The 99th percentile will give you a

18 higher monthly effluent limit.

Key in the USEPA policy is that

20 your -- in this case, ammonia effluent limits are 09:46:13

21 independent from day-to-day, which is clearly not

22 the case when they have an upset. It may last for

23 two days, may last for a week, it may last for a

24 month.

0127

And so the USEPA protocol really

2 underestimates the appropriate monthly limits. And

3 they acknowledge that in the technical support

4 document where you don't have independent from one

5 result to the next stage result.

09:46:38

Q. But, nevertheless, the monthly limits

7 that are being suggested here by Citgo are based

8 upon the 95th percentile?

A. The more conservative 95th percentile,

10 yes, sir.

09:46:54

MR. RAO: May I just interject?

Mr. Huff, will it be possible for

you to give us the citation of the USEPA

document that you're referring to, if it's

not part of the record?

09:47:03

MR. FORT: It is at the end of his

prepared testimony.

MR. RAO: Is it? Okay.

19 BY THE WITNESS:

A. And it's EPA document 440/4-85-032. 09:47:09

21 BY MR. FORT:

Q. Well, while we're talking about

23 Mr. Huff's references, Mr. Huff, I believe you had

24 five references to your prefiled testimony. And one

0128

1 of them was the one to the USEPA document you just

2 cited.

I think another one was to your

4 actual water quality report that you prepared in

5 February of '08. What are the other three

09:47:35

6 references that you have?

A. One was the use attainability analysis

8 prepared by McGee and the Chicago area waterways,

9 another was the Illinois EPA statement of reason in

10 the UAA proceedings, which are 08-09. And the other 09:47:53

11 was the prefiled testimony of an IEPA employee Rob

12 Shultky in that same manner.

Q. So large parts of your testimony here

14 are actually using and relying upon testimony that

15 the Agency included in the Use Attainability Rule? 09:48:09

A. Well, some of it is, certainly, yes.

Q. Mr. Huff, you also did a calculation

18 of the amount of horsepower that might be required

19 to put in some of the additional treatment that

20 the -- that Mr. Stein looked at as possible

09:48:39

21 additional things; did you not?

A. Actually, Mr. Stein's office did the

23 horsepower calculation.

Q. Well, describe the horsepower

0129

1 calculation and how you used it.

A. Well, Mr. Stein's low-cost alternative

3 that was derived, they estimated, 144 horsepower

4 would be required to be added in the way of

5 mechanical equipment. And then I used that to try 09:49:08

6 to go back and calculate how much carbon dioxide

7 that would result in emissions.

Q. And did you come up with a number?

A. Almost two million pounds annually.

Q. Two million pounds annually of carbon 09:49:22

11 dioxide would be added in the efforts to reduce the

12 ammonia?

A. Yes.

Q. Or the effort to maybe reduce the

15 ammonia consistently; correct?

09:49:31

A. Correct.

Q. Mr. Huff, you've also been involved

18 with Citgo in terms of their installation of the

19 purge treatment unit as part of their reduction in

20 air emissions?

09:49:54

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Describe for us briefly what that is,

23 purge treatment unit?

A. Citgo, like a lot of refineries, has

0130

1 been required to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions

2 from their largest source, which is called the Fluid

3 Catalytic Converter or FCC unit. Citgo, as all

4 refineries, have elected to put in, basically, a wet

5 scrubber.

09:50:21

So they're scrubbing with a

7 solution of -- a mild caustic solution. And the

8 result is they produce sodium sulfite,

9 S-U-L-F-I-T-E. In Citgo's case, that sodium sulfite

10 stream then goes through what's called a purge

09:50:40

11 treatment unit where the catalyst fines are removed

12 and the sulfite is oxidized to the sulphate form.

Q. And in Citgo's situation, do they --

14 are they taking -- that's now in operation?

A. That's correct.

09:50:56

Q. And is that going into their regular

17 wastewater treatment facility, or not?

A. It is not -- you, basically, have two

19 options. One is you can oxidize in this purge

20 treatment unit and then bypass the biological

09:51:08

21 treatment unit or you can attempt to put the sodium

22 sulfite into the biological unit.

There's a considerable oxygen

24 demand loading with that, so you have to increase

0131

1 your air supply dramatically in your activated

2 sludge unit. You also have a more dense liquid, if

3 you will, because of the higher dissolved solids.

4 And so your solid separation is not as good in the

5 clarifier.

09:51:38

You have the potential to produce

7 filamentous growth in those clarifiers. So that, in

8 my mind, is a higher risk approach.

Citgo elected to treat that purge

10 in the purge treatment unit and then that stream

09:51:54

11 bypasses their biological treatment unit, goes into

12 the final treated water basin. And then it all goes

13 out through the same outfall.

Q. When you're talking about the high

15 risk of the alternative of sending it through the 09:52:13

16 regular wastewater treatment plant, is there any

17 risk associated with nitrification there?

A. Well, I believe there is. The

19 concerns you would have is with the sodium sulphate

20 or sulfite if you end up with shocks. Say, when you 09:52:27

21 first bring the FCC unit back online or you shut

22 down that FCC unit, you're going to have quite a

23 shift in loading there.

I would worry that it would have a

0132

1 negative impact on your ability to nitrify in the

2 short term. And given the difficulties that we

3 already have in achieving consistent nitrification,

4 that's what I was referring to on a higher risk.

Q. Thank you.

09:52:56

MR. FORT: I have a couple questions

for Mr. Stein. So again, we assume

Mr. Stein's testimony will be entered as if

read at this point in the transcript.

THE HEARING OFFICER: That's correct. 09:53:13

And again, to make the record clear, I will

give the court reporter Ms. Postel's prefiled

testimony, that's Exhibit 13, Mr. Huff's

prefiled testimony, Exhibit 14 and

Mr. Stein's testimony, the corrected

09:53:27

testimony, marked as Exhibit 10. I'll give

that to Sharon and she can transcribe it into

the transcript as if read.

MR. FORT: Thank you.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.

09:53:38

21 BY MR. FORT:

Q. Mr. Stein, I was asking Mr. Huff some

23 questions about the impact of sending this PTU

24 material into a regular -- or into the existing

0133

1 industrial wastewater treatment facility. You heard

2 that testimony?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Do you generally agree with Mr. Huff's

5 comments?

09:54:00

A. Yes. I'd probably expand.

I would think there's actually a

8 very significant chance of getting filamentous or

9 bulking sludge, which would cause an upset in the

10 treatment plant. I was just involved in a project 09:54:11

11 at a paper mill that had a very similar situation.

They had gone ten years without a

13 problem, and then, because of high temperatures, had

14 some sulfites. And developed sulphur-based

15 filaments and lost control of the system, and

09:54:30

16 lost -- very heavily solids.

What happens is, when you get the

18 filamentous bulking, you cannot settle very well.

19 And, therefore, the solids will go out the effluent

20 and you lose control of your treatment system.

09:54:46

THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Stein, can I

ask you to keep your voice up. I'm not even

sure when 10:00 rolls around we're going to

have mics, unless -- if the voices keep

0134

lowering maybe we'll have to put the

witnesses up here when the mics are turned

on.

Because the testimony keeps going

softer. And I'm having a hard time hearing, 09:55:05

and I think Sharon is, as well, so...

MR. STEIN: I'm sorry.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Oh, no. If you

could just make an extra effort.

MR. STEIN: All right. I'll try.

09:55:14

THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, sir.

MR. FORT: Face the court reporter,

not me.

MR. STEIN: All right.

15 BY MR. FORT:

09:55:19

Q. So, Mr. Stein, let me make sure I

17 understand then. You're saying that if a PTU

18 discharge associated with air pollution control

19 efforts, such as an FCC, is sent into an existing

20 industrial wastewater treatment plant, which has

09:55:33

21 achieved nitrification in the past, it may not be

22 able to continue in the future?

A. Yes, that's very true. Because you

24 have, as Mr. Huff stated, one, an additional oxygen

0135

1 demand on the treatment plant. And nitrifying

2 organisms are very sensitive to oxygen.

As you start getting a DO or

4 dissolved oxygen level less than two milligrams per

5 liter in a biological treatment system, the

09:55:59

6 nitrifiers stop nitrifying and you lose your

7 biological nitrification. Also, with the

8 sulphur-type materials you can have the potential

9 problem of developing certain types of filaments,

10 such as the enulin nicola 3 (phonetic), which would 09:56:21

11 upset the treatment system, and, therefore, lose

12 solids and further reduce the ability to nitrify.

Q. Mr. Stein, you saw the Agency's

14 recommendations concerning other refineries; did you

15 not?

09:56:45

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Let me direct your first to the Mobil

18 refinery. Do you know if they are planning on

19 sending -- if they are under construction still with

20 their PTU, or are they now operational for PTU?

09:56:57

A. It's my understanding that they are

22 under construction on the PTU. And I believe that

23 is going to go into their biological wastewater

24 treatment plant.

0136

Q. So in terms of their discharge that

2 they have had in the past, they're not sure if

3 they're going to be able to handle and achieve

4 nitrification with that PTU discharge going into the

5 regular plant.

09:57:23

A. That would be my opinion, that they

7 very well could experience problems.

And the other thing is, if I can

9 expand on that a little bit, you know, I've been

10 doing this for 30-some-odd years. And in many

09:57:31

11 cases, we have -- with regard to filamentous

12 bulking, we have done laboratory -- extensive

13 laboratory treatability studies on a treatment

14 system where we did not experience filamentous

15 bulking.

09:57:50

But when you get to the full scale

17 system, you have extensive filamentous bulking

18 problems. And that's because, on the small

19 laboratory scale study, when you're testing

20 something out, you can't really demonstrate what's 09:58:01

21 actually happening in the full scale system.

So you can do very good in your

23 preliminary testing, and then when you get your full

24 scale system, find that there are problems.

0137

Q. In terms of that issue, how long a

2 period of time do you think is long enough to know

3 that you have a good handle and can guarantee

4 performance to meet a nitrification requirement that

5 is reflected with the three milligram per liter

09:58:34

6 number?

A. I would say that you need to go

8 through a full MPDS permit cycle, which would be a

9 minimum of five years.

Q. Why do you say five years?

09:58:45

A. Because there's inherent variability

12 in a treatment system. Unless you've got good

13 long-term demonstration, then there's always the,

14 you know, potential problem of upsets.

Q. Now, in terms of the Conoco

09:59:07

16 performance, I believe the Agency seems to be

17 correcting what they said in their recommendation.

18 But you looked into the Conoco performance, how well

19 they were able to achieve nitrification?

A. Yes. I mean, the data -- and I pulled 09:59:24

21 it off the USEPA website, which has the reported

22 data for NPDS permits. And if you look at the data

23 for the Conoco refinery, they get about 90 percent

24 compliance with the three milligram per liter, where

0138

1 their effluent is less than three milligrams per

2 liter.

But they also have ten percent of

4 the time that they exceed the limits -- the three

5 milligrams per liter limit. And if you look at

09:59:57

6 their data and compare it to Citgo, the performance

7 of the Conoco is very similar to Citgo.

And, you know, the detention time

9 in the activated sludge system is several -- I

10 think, four or five times longer.

10:00:16

Q. So the detention time doesn't equate

12 to a better performance?

A. No, it doesn't. Really, the detention

14 time is -- a better factor is the FM or food to

15 microorganism ratio in the treatment plant. But

10:00:33

16 there's also a number of other factors that can

17 affect the performance of a biological wastewater

18 treatment plant.

Q. Do you know where Conoco gets their

20 water? Is it a well source or is it a river source? 10:00:45

A. I believe it's a well source. But I'm

22 not 100 percent sure.

23 BY MR. FORT:

Q. Mr. Huff, what's the kind of ammonia

0139

1 in the Sanitary and Ship Canal these days, in

2 testimony?

A. What's the kind?

Q. What levels?

A. Oh, you're consistently below one

10:01:03

6 milligram per liter total ammonia.

Q. But is that a level that is higher or

8 lower than what you'd expect in a well water supply?

A. I would expect the well water to be

10 basically nondetected in ammonia.

10:01:18

Q. So Conoco is having about the same

12 performance, but they probably have a background

13 that's far lower than what Citgo has?

A. Yes.

Q. Because Citgo takes in water from the 10:01:27

16 Ship Canal; correct?

A. Correct.

MR. STEIN: Which is still, I believe,

a half to one milligram per liter of ammonia

in the Ship Canal.

10:01:35

MR. FORT: Those are all the other

questions that I had. Thank you.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you,

Mr. Fort.

0140

Mr. Boltz?

MR. BOLTZ: Yes, thank you,

Your Honor.

Does it matter which order I take?

THE HEARING OFFICER: Whatever

10:01:55

questions -- no, it doesn't.

MR. BOLTZ: Let's start in reverse

order.

I'm going to go ahead and proceed

with Mr. Stein, from, again, the Illinois

10:02:06

EPA's participation.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

13 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. Mr. Stein?

A. Yes.

10:02:12

Q. My name is Jason Boltz. Nice to meet

17 you, sir.

A. Nice meeting you, Mr. Boltz.

Q. Thank you for participating today.

I have had an opportunity to look 10:02:19

21 at your testimony as you presented it before, and I

22 do have some questions for you.

Now, you've already provided some

24 testimony for us regarding Conoco-Phillips; correct?

0141

A. Yes.

Q. And you've also taken the time to

3 evaluate Conoco-Phillips -- their ability to nitrify

4 through their ammonia limits, as reports to USEPA;

5 is that correct?

10:02:43

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware of what standard

8 Conoco-Phillips needs to comply with regarding

9 ammonia?

A. I understand it's a higher standard 10:02:53

11 than the three milligrams per liter standard.

Q. And when you say higher, do you mean

13 it's less stringent?

A. Yes.

Q. Do they have to comply with

10:03:05

16 304.122(b)?

A. I do not believe they do.

Q. They don't; do they?

A. No.

Q. Because you've done a comparative

10:03:13

21 analysis and study with Citgo versus the other three

22 refineries. That was part of your job as it relates

23 to Citgo; isn't that correct?

A. Well, part of it was to review, you

0142

1 know, what the other refineries are doing.

Q. Relative to Citgo for purposes of

3 whether or not the ammonia nitrogen --

MR. FORT: I object to this line of

questioning. Because, actually, our

10:03:35

applicable standard is the one that's in

effect now through the end of the year.

So I'm not sure what inferences

the Agency is trying to draw here when we had

a different standard that we were subject to. 10:03:45

MR. BOLTZ: Your Honor, that's not

even a legally recognizable objection. I'm

having cross-examination.

If he understands the question, I

would ask that he answer it.

10:03:56

THE HEARING OFFICER: Are you going to

respond to --

MR. BOLTZ: That's how I'm responding

to his objection. I'm not...

THE HEARING OFFICER: Overruled.

10:04:02

21 BY THE WITNESS:

A. I would say, and, you know, in the

23 instance of Citgo, and I believe the other

24 refineries, I think -- and I've done a lot of work

0143

1 with industrial environmental control. But most

2 industries try to operate their treatment plants to

3 get the best possible effluent quality.

And, therefore, in looking at the

5 data, since the Conoco-Phillips normally gets very 10:04:30

6 low effluent levels and the Citgo refinery also gets

7 very low effluent levels on a long-term basis, I

8 would think that both of them are trying to do a

9 very good job. And when I look at the data, the

10 data shows what I have stated, that there is

10:04:55

11 inherent variability during -- due to product mix,

12 different variations, temperature that can affect

13 the biological wastewater treatment plant so you see

14 the normal inherent variability.

One of the things --

10:05:19

16 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. Well, let me ask a question.

MR. FORT: Well, let him answer if

there's an answer.

MR. BOLTZ: I think he's entered into 10:05:24

a narrative, Your Honor, so I would ask that

I be able to provide a cross-examination

here. He's not being responsive to my

questions.

0144

THE HEARING OFFICER: Sustained. You

can continue, Mr. Boltz.

MR. BOLTZ: Thank, Your Honor.

4 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. So while both of these refineries are 10:05:36

6 attempting to do a good job, as you stated, Conoco

7 doesn't even need to comply with 304.122(b); isn't

8 that correct?

They don't need to comply with

10 304.122(b); do they?

10:05:50

MR. FORT: Object. He's arguing, and

it's really irrelevant to this proceedings.

MR. BOLTZ: I have not received an

answer to my question, and it's very relevant

to the technical feasibility aspect of the 10:05:57

argument that the petition needs to present.

MR. FORT: I am going to further

object to a lack of foundation. Because he's

assuming that you can just go low enough.

MR. BOLTZ: Foundation isn't required 10:06:06

under cross-examination.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Boltz, let

Mr. Fort continue.

MR. BOLTZ: I'm sorry.

0145

MR. FORT: When the scientific

evidence is that you either nitrify or you

don't, you don't just nitrify a little bit

and just bump along at a particular level,

so --

10:06:19

MR. BOLTZ: Your Honor --

MR. FORT: -- I object, the foundation

of his question is irrelevant.

MR. BOLTZ: Two things, Your Honor.

One, he's arguing his case in

10:06:27

cross-examination.

Two, he hasn't presented, again, a

legally recognizable objection for purpose of

cross, because foundation is required under

cross-examination. So, again, I'm not quite 10:06:34

sure where he's going with this.

THE HEARING OFFICER: I agree with

Mr. Boltz. You may continue your course of

cross.

MR. BOLTZ: Madam court reporter,

could you please read back my question to the

witness, please.

THE HEARING OFFICER: You can ask me

and then I'll ask Sharon to read it back.

0146

MR. BOLTZ: Could you please, I

apologize. Thank you, Your Honor.

(WHEREUPON, the record was

read by the reporter.)

5 BY THE WITNESS:

10:07:11

A. That is true.

But at the same token, I think

8 right now the Citgo refinery doesn't -- I mean, it

9 has an NPDS permit that they have to comply with.

10 BY MR. BOLTZ:

10:07:24

Q. Well, let me ask you a question then:

12 Have you looked into Conoco-Phillips regulatory

13 requirements?

A. I have not looked at the specific

15 limits.

10:07:35

Q. So you haven't even investigated as to

17 what Conoco needs to do in terms of compliance,

18 relative to their ammonia nitrogen. Is that what

19 you're telling the Board today?

A. I'm saying I've looked at the

10:07:47

21 performance of their treatment plant and also I

22 don't know -- I do not believe they have had a

23 violation of their limits.

Q. But you're not aware of what their

0147

1 regulatory requirements are. Is that what you're

2 saying today?

A. Right.

Q. Okay.

And with respect to biological and 10:08:04

6 treatment times, you have already discussed that on

7 direct examination. With respect to ExxonMobil and

8 comparing them to Lemont --

A. Right.

Q. -- who has a longer detention time? 10:08:20

A. ExxonMobil, I believe, has 11 hours

12 and the Citgo is about eight hours.

Q. You put in your testimony that the

14 activated sludge time for Lemont is 7.7 hours. Does

15 that sound right to you?

10:08:35

A. Yes.

Q. And you stated in the ExxonMobil's,

18 their refinery detention time, that they're upgraded

19 to 19.4 hours; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

10:08:45

Q. How do you know that?

A. Based on receiving reports on what the

23 ExxonMobil changes in their treatment plant.

Q. Did they send you reports?

0148

A. I was provided reports.

Q. Did you ask them for reports?

A. It was received through -- the

4 attorneys were able to obtain reports.

Q. So your attorney provided you with

10:09:04

6 reports as to what these other folks' detention

7 times were going to be?

A. Right.

Q. Okay.

MR. FORT: I think that information 10:09:13

came from the construction permit

applications.

13 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. Now, with respect to Marathon Oil, who

15 has a longer detention time, Marathon or Lemont?

10:09:27

A. Marathon.

Q. And what is Marathon's detention time?

A. I believe it is about a day and a

19 half.

Q. It's 1.54 days? Does that sound

10:09:37

21 right?

A. Right.

Q. So both Exxon and Marathon have longer

24 detention times than Lemont; correct?

0149

A. Right.

Q. Now, let's step back to Exxon.

Have you evaluated or come to an

4 understanding of what regulatory compliance measures

5 that they're under?

10:09:55

A. Well, I know they've been under the --

7 they have had a site-specific variance probably for

8 the last 20-some-odd years.

Q. And to what standards?

A. I believe it's BAT.

10:10:08

Q. Have they -- do you know if they have

12 had to comply with 304.122(b)?

A. They have not -- they have not had to

14 comply with the three and six.

Q. You've stated that they had an

10:10:22

16 adjusted standard?

A. Right.

Q. That standard was adjusted from what?

19 From what general applicability standard?

A. The three and six.

10:10:30

Q. The 304.122(b) standard?

A. Right.

Q. Do you know if they're going to

24 continue to pursue in just the standard?

0150

A. They have -- it is my understanding

2 that they have not asked to have the adjusted

3 standard renewed.

Q. Do you know if, based upon recent

5 levels of ammonium nitrate for Exxon, whether or not 10:10:51

6 they have complied with the three and six standard?

A. Do you mean ammonium nitrate or

8 ammonia and nitrogen?

Q. Ammonia and nitrogen.

A. It is my understanding that they are 10:11:06

11 not -- they have complied the last couple of years

12 with the three and six.

Q. The last couple of years. Do you know

14 in fact how many years they've complied?

A. Roughly -- from the data I have seen, 10:11:21

16 at least two years.

Q. At least two years. So you're saying

18 from the data you've seen they've only waited two

19 years and now they're not going to seek a

20 continuance of the adjusted standard. Is that what 10:11:33

21 you're saying today?

A. That's my understanding.

Q. So they're not going to wait the

24 necessary five years, as you stated under your

0151

1 direct examination; isn't that correct?

A. That is what they're doing, but

3 they're also making major changes with their --

Q. Okay. I'm not asking about the major

5 changes, sir.

10:11:50

MR. FORT: Well, you know, I would

like the counsel to be a little more --

developing the record. Because you seem to

be cutting him off, routinely, counsel. And

I thought you said you wanted information. 10:11:58

THE HEARING OFFICER: You know, I kind

of agree with Mr. Fort. Obviously, Mr. Fort

can do a redirect.

But, again, if you'd let the

witness finish just a little bit before you 10:12:09

cut him off.

MR. BOLTZ: I just want him to answer

my question. I thought he was going in an

unresponsive direction in his testimony, and

I just wanted to be able to continue my line 10:12:17

of questioning, Your Honor.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Proceed,

Mr. Boltz.

MR. BOLTZ: Thank you, sir. I'm

0152

sorry, I'm not looking to interrupt or cause

any problems with his testimony.

3 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. Are you familiar with the technologies

5 utilized by these other three refineries in the

10:12:33

6 state of Illinois?

A. Yes.

Q. Are they generally different, similar

9 or -- than what happens at Citgo?

A. They're generally similar.

10:12:45

Q. So the way they perceive technology

12 is, again, very similar?

A. Similar as far as activated sludge.

14 But there can be varying significant differences in

15 how they operate their system.

10:13:03

Q. Have you also taken the opportunity to

17 evaluate Marathon Oil in their regulatory standards?

A. No, I haven't. I looked at the levels

19 that they were achieving.

Q. Okay.

10:13:15

A. Very low levels of...

Q. So they've used a similar technology

23 and they have very low levels. Is what you're

24 saying? Of ammonia and nitrogen effluence; is that

0153

1 right?

A. Yes, they have.

Q. All right.

A. But there are a whole bunch of factors

5 that can come into play.

10:13:33

Q. I don't understand.

MR. FORT: Well, let him answer.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Let Mr. Stein

answer, please. Thank you, Mr. Boltz.

10 BY THE WITNESS:

10:13:40

A. For example, a refinery can use very

12 high levels of water, dilute their effluent and meet

13 a low concentration limit. Where, you know, one of

14 the key factors is, you know, your pounds per day

15 discharge, as compared to the, you know, limits.

10:13:53

16 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. So they're doing things a little bit

18 differently there?

A. Right.

MR. FORT: Excuse me. Are you

10:14:03

clarifying that the Agency says delusion is

okay?

MR. BOLTZ: I'm asking your witness a

question under cross-examination.

0154

MR. FORT: It's just your comment

about doing a little bit differently is what

intrigued me.

MR. BOLTZ: He said yes.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Your observation 10:14:18

is on the record, Mr. Fort.

You may proceed, Mr. Boltz.

MR. BOLTZ: Thank you, Your Honor.

9 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. Have they met the three-six levels? 10:14:24

A. Yes, they have. You're talking about

12 Marathon?

Q. Yes, sir. My line of questioning

14 right now is Marathon. Thank you.

A. Yes.

10:14:33

Q. How long do you know that they have

17 met this three-six standard?

A. At least through 2000 -- I think 2004

19 through 2006.

Q. Do you know if they're still meeting 10:14:46

21 it today?

A. No, I don't.

Q. You don't know.

But you know through at least 2004

0155

1 through 2006?

A. Well, I use the EPA database, which is

3 available on the internet --

Q. Right.

A. -- which is about a year and a half 10:15:00

6 behind as far as the -- I believe it's the DMR

7 reports that are submitted by the dischargers, get

8 entered into the EPA database and are relied on the

9 available information from the EPA database on the

10 internet.

10:15:19

Q. So fast forward to today. Moving

12 forward to today, do you know if -- for instance, if

13 Marathon -- are they seeking any sort of adjusted

14 standard?

A. I don't know.

10:15:34

Q. You don't know.

But you do know from the years

18 that you've seen that they've met the three-six

19 standard at least?

A. Yes.

10:15:41

Q. And I'm summarizing here. With

22 respect to Exxon, they're being the three-six

23 standard today, from the most recent information

24 you've been provided?

0156

A. The most recent -- but they've had --

2 I mean, if you look at the data over the period,

3 percent of violations of the three-six, through the

4 period that I looked at, which was 2004 through the

5 end of 2006, they had a higher percentage of

10:16:04

6 violations because they were consistently above the

7 three and six during 2004.

Q. So during the course of your studies,

9 you have not -- and I'm speaking with respect to

10 your comparative analysis studies of the other

10:16:31

11 refineries in the state of Illinois, you have not

12 taken that extra step to understand what necessarily

13 their regulatory standards would be; is that

14 correct? You just evaluated again their limits of

15 ammonia and nitrogen?

10:16:47

A. Right.

Q. During the course of your other

18 evaluations of Citgo, did you do any sort of

19 economic analysis relative to Citgo's ability to

20 obtain nitrification?

10:17:37

A. Yeah. I mean, they obtained

22 nitrification right now. So the question is the --

Q. They're meeting the three-six

24 standards?

0157

A. To try -- additional technology to

2 meet the three-six standard. Yes, we did a detailed

3 review of technology and came up with designs of

4 potential treatment options that could meet the

5 three-six.

10:18:01

Q. Was -- part of your investigation, did

7 that include evaluating how much money Citgo makes?

A. No.

Q. Did you do a budgetary analysis of

10 Citgo to see how much money they can spend towards 10:18:16

11 bettering their refinery to lower the limits that

12 they typically --

MR. FORT: I'm going to object on

relevance of how much a company or an entity

makes is not relevant to the proceeding here. 10:18:32

THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Boltz?

MR. BOLTZ: Your Honor, I would argue

it is. The economic reasonableness is a

specific component, as articulated through

the Act.

10:18:43

MR. FORT: The economic reasonableness

under the Act is never meant how much money

does a company make. It's always been tied

to a cost benefit of the technology,

0158

availability, and typically, if not almost

always, has been a cost effectiveness

decision and what's the need, from a

technical standpoint, what's the

environmental need.

10:19:00

MR. BOLTZ: Your Honor, I would argue

that it's relevant. It's relevant, and

relevant evidence, you know, should be

admissible for purposes of at least guiding

the Board in a full evaluation of whether or 10:19:09

not it would have been economically

reasonable or not for Citgo to pursue these

various options that is presented to the

Board.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah, I'm going 10:19:21

to overrule Mr. Fort's objection.

You may answer if you're able to,

Mr. Stein.

19 BY THE WITNESS:

A. All right. We did, you know, a couple 10:19:28

21 of things.

We did not look at the profits or

23 balance sheet of Citgo.

0159

1 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. Okay.

A. But, you know, I have done a lot of

4 work in looking at BAT and the cost applicability of

5 putting in a treatment plant, an additional

10:19:49

6 treatment plant.

For example, if you look at a

8 municipal treatment plant, the cost of nitrogen

9 removal is about one dollar per pound. If you look

10 at -- and so, what you do to do a BAT evaluation of 10:20:07

11 the cost effectiveness of nitrogen removal, is you

12 look at the level of additional nitrogen removal you

13 can achieve with a type of expenditure.

Right now, the Citgo refinery is

15 getting down to an average of -- which I had in the 10:20:34

16 report, which I think was 2006, 2007 -- of 122

17 pounds per day. Which, if you look at the three

18 milligram per liter standard and their flow limit,

19 they would be allowed to get 177 pounds per day.

So right now pounds-per-daywise, 10:20:56

21 they were less than the standard. So if you look at

22 a cost benefit, if you're going to spend an

23 extra 3. -- I believe it's $3.2 million a year, and

24 you're only going to get, say, ten or 20 pounds per

0160

1 day additional nitrogen removal on a long-term

2 basis, you still may not be able to comply with a

3 three and six. Then you're talking about spending

4 $20,000 per pound for additional nitrogen removal as

5 compared to a -- what is typically BAT of one to $3 10:21:36

6 per pound, that would not be cost effective.

MR. RAO: May I ask a follow-up

question?

MR. BOLTZ: Please do.

MR. RAO: Mr. Stein, you just

10:21:58

testified about the cost analysis, which

references Citgo. Did you do any similar

analysis for the other three refineries as to

what kind of cost effectiveness their

nitrification plants --

10:22:17

MR. STEIN: No, we didn't.

MR. RAO: -- were achieving?

MR. STEIN: No.

MR. RAO: Thank you.

MR. BOLTZ: I'd like -- I have no

10:22:35

further questions for this witness.

MR. RAO: Mr. Boltz, I just have one

question for Mr. Stein. It's not a

follow-up --

0161

MR. BOLTZ: Oh, please.

MR. RAO: -- but since he's been

answering questions.

Mr. Stein, in your prefiled

testimony at Pages 2 and 3, you indicate that 10:22:58

the February 2008 AWARE Report contains a

review of activated sludge plants with

regards to factors which control, I believe

you have, biological treatment facility to

achieve nitrification. You list these

10:23:18

factors as including food to microorganism

ratio, sludge age, dissolved oxygen

concentration, temperature, pH and

alkalinity.

Did you also review the affect of 10:23:32

detention time, surface area and clarifier

overflow rates as factors that could affect

nitrification? Most specifically detention

time, because that's been raised by the

Agency.

10:23:51

MR. STEIN: Well, I guess I did not

look at detention time, because I think a

more realistic evaluation is the food to

microorganism ratio. Let me explain what the

0162

food to microorganism ratio is.

That's the pounds of BOD applied

per pound of MLSS, which is mixed liquor --

mixed liquor suspended solids, which are the

actual active biomass in your system. So -- 10:24:22

and for a nitrification -- to get biological

nitrification, you tend need to have an F to

M of less than .3.

So what happens is, you can have a

long detention time and have a low mixed

10:24:42

liquor suspended solids or you can have a

short detention time and have a higher

solids. So the detention time is not as

critical as the F to M ratio. And that's why

I really concentrated on the F to M ratio. 10:25:00

Because that is actually how much

food the organisms are receiving. And the F

to M ratio at the Lemont refinery runs from

about .05 to about .28. Which is in the, you

know, the less than .3 range.

10:25:23

And also the other factor is

sludge age, which is the length of time your

mixed liquor solids are in the aeration

basin. And to get biological nitrification,

0163

you, typically, want a sludge age of greater

than ten days.

The sludge age at the Lemont

refinery ranges from 13 to greater than a

hundred days.

10:25:55

MR. RAO: How do these factors, sludge

age and foot to microorganism ratio, for

Citgo refinery compare with the other three

refineries that you evaluated?

MR. STEIN: I wasn't able to get

10:26:10

enough data to evaluate their sludge age and

F to M ratio.

MR. RAO: Okay. Thank you.

THE HEARING OFFICER: All right.

Mr. Boltz, do you --

10:26:23

MR. BOLTZ: Your Honor, I do actually

have one more question for this witness.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay.

MR. BOLTZ: I'm sorry to back up on

you that way.

10:26:29

21 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. Within one of your paragraphs, sir, in

23 your prefiled testimony, you stated that -- and I

24 think this is just a matter of clarification here.

0164

1 But I know within the Agency's recommendation that

2 it stated that, obviously, there was another

3 refinery on the Ship Canal.

Can you discuss and clarify, if

5 you can or will, the relationship of Citgo in terms 10:26:54

6 of its location on the Ship Canal versus the

7 proximity to Exxon and where they're located in

8 terms of their river body or other water body, if

9 you're not aware?

A. Well, I mean, I haven't done any work 10:27:11

11 with ExxonMobil, but I have done other work for

12 another industry in Channahon. I know they're in

13 Channahon just over the, I believe, the Des Plaines

14 River. And I believe they would discharge into the

15 Des Plaines River.

10:27:28

Jim could probably expand better

17 than I could as far as -- I know the --

Q. The relationship in terms of where

19 they're located?

A. I know where they're located and I

10:27:40

21 know -- I believe -- and I know the Citgo refinery

22 goes into the canal.

Q. The Ship Canal?

A. The Ship Canal. I do not know

0165

1 specifically the tie-in with the Ship Canal and the

2 Des Plaines River.

Q. Do you know if they tie into one

4 another?

Why don't I go to Mr. Huff,

10:28:05

6 because I think you would feel more comfortable if

7 he answered that question.

MR. BOLTZ: With your permission,

Your Honor?

THE HEARING OFFICER: Sure. You may 10:28:07

go, Mr. Boltz.

12 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. Mr. Huff, do you want to go ahead and

14 elaborate further, because I think Mr. Stein was

15 wanting you to answer that.

10:28:14

A. Well, the Lemont refinery Citgo is

17 located on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The

18 ExxonMobil refinery is located on the Des Plaines

19 River just upstream of the I-55 bridge.

The I-55 bridge is the demarkation 10:28:27

21 between the secondary contact waters and the primary

22 contact waters.

Q. With respect to the Des Plaines River

24 and Ship Canal, do they flow into one another, do

0166

1 they --

A. Well, the Sanitary and Ship Canal

3 flows to Lockport. There's a lock and damn at

4 Lockport.

And right immediately below that, 10:28:46

6 it merges into the Des Plaines River.

Q. So it is a contiguous waterway with

8 that damn right there in the middle; is that

9 correct?

A. Well --

10:28:57

Q. In between that?

A. I think you're putting words in my

13 mouth.

Q. Well, if I --

A. The Sanitary and Ship Canal enters the 10:29:05

16 Des Plaines River. They are not contiguous in the

17 sense that you have an electric barrier there that

18 prevents that contiguous contact between those water

19 bodies with respect to plant life.

Q. Okay. But they do run into one

10:29:17

21 another?

A. The Sanitary and Ship Canal merges

23 into the Des Plaines River at Lockport.

Q. And then the Des Plaines River will

0167

1 move along and then eventually you come upon the

2 Exxon refinery?

A. Immediately upstream of the I-55

4 bridge, yes, sir.

Q. Thank you, sir.

10:29:35

MR. BOLTZ: And that's for the point

of clarification for the Board's benefit.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Anybody want to

take about an eight-minute break? We are off

the record.

10:29:52

(WHEREUPON, a recess was had.)

THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Back

on the record.

Mr. Boltz is still in his

cross-examination mode.

10:39:32

MR. BOLTZ: Thank you, sir.

THE HEARING OFFICER: You may proceed.

MR. BOLTZ: Your Honor, we'd actually

like to follow-up --

THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Rao?

10:39:38

MR. BOLTZ: On Mr. Stein, actually.

He provided some information and we want

to -- to a limited degree.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Go ahead.

0168

1 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. Previously, Mr. Stein, you

3 testified and you have also been kind enough to

4 provide information within your prefiled testimony

5 on Page 4. Okay. You're discussing the limited

10:39:56

6 problems or the inhibitions that refinery wastewater

7 causes relative to the nitrifiers.

Do you recall that part of your

9 testimony?

A. Right.

10:40:11

Q. And I think the Board has questions

12 for you regarding the same. Or just --

A. All right.

Q. Really, from the Agency's perspective,

15 we would like to know, I guess, your opinion. If 10:40:22

16 that detention period increased, you know, at the

17 basin, to allow for the nitrifiers to do their work,

18 because of that refinery wastewater, because the

19 inhibitions it proposes, do you believe that a

20 longer detention time would help?

10:40:41

A. Not necessarily. The problem is you

22 get different types of materials that could be an

23 inhibitory to nitrification. The concentration of

24 those materials, which are not necessarily

0169

1 biodegradable, will inhibit the nitrifiers, and,

2 therefore -- you know, and that is what I feel is

3 causing the upsets.

And just to clarify, I guess one

5 of the other questions that was raised, I think on 10:41:15

6 the F to M and detention time, detention time is a

7 factor in F to M. Because the size of the basin

8 does affect the F to M.

But the F to M at the Chicago --

10 the Lemont refinery, even though they have a shorter 10:41:30

11 detention time, is a reasonable F to M to get

12 biological nitrification.

Q. Well, if I may follow up on some of

14 the things we discussed, because, again, I would

15 just like to extrapolate and seek clarification.

10:41:41

16 You discuss some of these other materials that can

17 further complicate the nitrification?

A. Right.

Q. Can you explain what you meant by that

20 a little bit?

10:41:54

A. Well, any type of -- different types

22 of organics. Like I had phenol -- I think I

23 specifically showed phenol in the -- my testimony.

Because phenol is inhibitory to

0170

1 carbonaceous or BOD removing organisms at about 200

2 milligrams per liter. The level of four to ten

3 milligrams per liter would be inhibitory to

4 nitrifiers. And there's a long list of metals,

5 organics and stuff that can inhibit nitrifiers at 10:42:28

6 relatively low levels.

Q. So just like the refinery wastewater,

8 they kind of screw up the process a little bit in

9 term of the nitrification?

A. Right.

10:42:42

Q. But again, wouldn't the longer

12 duration -- wouldn't that longer period of time,

13 wouldn't that help things? I mean, I guess I don't

14 understand how --

MR. FORT: Objecting. Asked and

10:42:49

answered. That was his first question, and

he's answered it.

MR. BOLTZ: I don't feel like --

THE HEARING OFFICER: I'll allow him

to answer. Overruled.

10:42:54

MR. BOLTZ: You can see the

discussion, we're getting to it, and I don't

want to complicate this at all. He's,

obviously, articulated that --

0171

1 BY THE WITNESS:

A. A longer detention time may not -- may

3 improve it but also may not improve it.

4 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. And why may -- and I'm looking for

10:43:07

6 exactly why.

A. Because if you've got a concentration

8 of a inhibitory material, that is still going to

9 upset the biomass. Even though you have a longer

10 detention time, if you've got that inhibitory

10:43:19

11 material into your treatment system, it will inhibit

12 the system.

Q. So when it inhibits the system, how

14 does the system repair itself to get past that

15 inhibition? I mean, does more time help, do you

10:43:35

16 need a bigger basin?

Is there a solution that you

18 thought of to get past these extra elements that

19 kind of upset what's going on?

A. Well, I think it's because of these -- 10:43:45

21 what happens is the system -- as you reduce the

22 concentration of inhibitory materials, then the

23 system recovers. That's why you see in data -- if

24 you look at the Conoco data, you look at the Citgo

0172

1 data, and I've worked on a whole bunch of other

2 nitrifying treatment plants, you see systems that go

3 along very well, then all of a sudden you see a

4 gradual spike of increased nitrogen and you try to

5 control -- you try to control that, sometimes try to 10:44:21

6 increase your biomass. And then you see that that

7 nitrogen goes down.

I've also seen cases where you

9 completely wipe out the biomass and you have to

10 bring in organisms from other treatment plants to 10:44:36

11 really reestablish your system. It's -- this

12 variability is the reason we say we cannot

13 consistently meet the three milligram per liter

14 level. And that is why, I believe, an EPA

15 developing BAT for the refining industry, you know, 10:44:54

16 limits -- the first thing -- their limits are on a

17 pound per day basis.

But they throw in an effluent

19 variability factor in -- if you go back to the

20 development document, which I referred to in my

10:45:10

21 testimony, they specifically have a variability

22 factor to account for these operations. And you do

23 get variability in a biological wastewater treatment

24 plant.

0173

Q. What you're getting at -- and I see

2 you've been kind enough to provide within your

3 testimony in Table 3, again, within Exhibit No. 15,

4 your prefiled testimony, the various detention times

5 of the other refineries as well as Lemont's. What 10:45:40

6 is the -- what goes into the decision making, if

7 there is a decision that's made, as to why Marathon

8 chooses 1.54 days, versus Exxon 10.9, versus

9 Lemont's 7.7?

Do you see what I'm saying? How 10:46:01

11 do these different refineries or how did Citgo come

12 to the decision that -- well, let's set ours at 7.7

13 hours versus 6 or 9?

A. Well, there's a whole bunch of factors

15 that could come on to your decision making. One is 10:46:13

16 what type of aeration device do you use?

Are you using course bubble

18 diffusers, fine bubble, or are you using low speed

19 or high speed mechanical areas? Different types of

20 treatment plants cannot maintain as many solids in 10:46:29

21 suspension -- different types of aeration devices

22 cannot maintain as much solids in suspension,

23 therefore, you need a longer detention time to

24 account for the fact that you're going to be

0174

1 operating at lower solids levels. So, you know,

2 you're trying to -- the basic factor in doing

3 treatability studies and coming up with a process

4 design is you look at what type of F to M or food to

5 microorganism ratio you need.

10:46:59

You know your pounds of food going

7 into the system, you know how many pounds of

8 microorganisms you need in your biological treatment

9 plant. To get those pounds of microorganisms, you

10 can either have less microorganisms and a longer, 10:47:12

11 bigger detention time, or you could have more

12 microorganisms and a shorter detention time.

But other factors, such as the

14 site configuration, can you go deeper, can we build

15 a bigger tank, can -- are we going to use coarse

10:47:31

16 bubble diffusers, fine bubble diffusers, low speed

17 aerators, jet aerators -- all have factors in how

18 you would configure the design of your biological

19 treatment plant.

Q. Did you ever recommend to Citgo that 10:47:49

21 they lengthen their detention time within the course

22 of your studies?

A. It was one of the things that we,

24 obviously, looked at in the -- in our evaluation.

0175

1 But our feeling was that they had an adequate

2 detention time -- that they actually had the --

3 using fine bubble diffusers, which is actually a

4 much better approach to get good oxygen transfer and

5 a better operating treatment plant.

10:48:19

MR. BOLTZ: That's all the questions I

have of Mr. Stein.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you,

Mr. Boltz. Do you want to move on to

Mr. Huff?

10:48:31

MR. BOLTZ: Yeah, let's go to

Mr. Huff.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

15 BY MR. BOLTZ:

10:48:36

Q. Good morning, Mr. Huff. I'm going to

17 ask you some similar questions I think, because I

18 think a lot of this hones in on, hopefully, your

19 level of expertise, especially with respect to

20 technological feasibility aspect that the Agency's 10:48:50

21 concerned about, as relates to some of the other

22 refineries in the state of Illinois.

Did you have an opportunity to

24 evaluate Marathon Oil, their operations within the

0176

1 state of Illinois, or was that not part of your

2 study?

A. No, sir. It was not part of my study.

Q. So you did not evaluate what Marathon

5 Oil was doing?

10:49:14

A. Right.

Q. Did you evaluate ExxonMobil?

A. With respect to this project?

Q. Yeah, with respect to meeting the

10 304.122(b) standard or alternatively meeting the

10:49:23

11 three-six levels or attempting to meet the three-six

12 levels?

A. With respect to this project? No,

14 sir.

Q. All right.

10:49:34

A. Now, Exxon is an active client of

17 mine. My first job was at that refinery building,

18 that wastewater treatment plant. So I have intimate

19 knowledge of their treatment plant.

Q. Independently of what you did for

10:49:45

21 Citgo?

A. That's correct.

Q. During the course of your studies at

24 Citgo, did you take affirmative steps to instruct or

0177

1 advise Citgo relative to what goes on at Mobil for

2 purpose of improvements, concerning the effluent

3 levels of ammonia and nitrogen at Citgo?

MR. FORT: I'm going to object,

because I don't know what the issue there is. 10:50:31

But I think you're running into some

dangerous grounds if you talk about nonpublic

information.

Can you rephrase the question?

MR. BOLTZ: No, I think that I'm

10:50:39

asking regarding his personal knowledge.

He's already testified, Your

Honor, that he has intimate knowledge of what

goes on at Exxon. You know, I would ask for

that comparison.

10:50:50

I'm looking to see whether or not

he drew upon his experience while he was at

Exxon to help Citgo out.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Right now,

Mr. Fort, I'll overrule it. But object when 10:50:58

you feel that we're getting closer to

dangerous waters.

MR. FORT: Yes.

MR. BOLTZ: I mean, it's not dangerous

0178

waters for me. I mean, if he has, you know,

confidentiality --

MR. FORT: Can we go off the record

for a minute?

THE HEARING OFFICER: Off the record. 10:51:14

(WHEREUPON, discussion was had

off the record.)

THE HEARING OFFICER: We're back on

the record.

Mr. Boltz?

10:51:52

MR. BOLTZ: Yes. I'll move off of

that question, Your Honor.

13 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. Did you use your experiences at Exxon,

15 specifically relative to ammonia and nitrogen

10:52:00

16 treatment, in your work at Citgo?

A. I think you're misunderstanding my

18 role at Citgo. My charge at Citgo was to look at

19 the environmental impact of the discharge.

Now it would be in the treatment 10:52:16

21 with Mr. Stein's responsibility. So the answer is

22 no.

Q. Okay. Then that's easy enough.

Do you have an understanding of

0179

1 what affects ammonia has on water quality standards?

A. Yes.

Q. What are they?

A. Well, it has some toxicity --

MR. FORT: I'm going to object to

10:52:39

asking a basic question that was done in

basic rulemaking about ammonia nitrogen and

why we have ammonia and nitrogen water

quality standards. I hope we're not going to

have to build this whole proceeding from

10:52:50

ground zero, which is the feeling that I'm

getting.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Boltz?

MR. BOLTZ: I think, again, that

environmental impact, another component to 10:52:56

this adjusted standards process -- I'm not

looking to build from ground up anything.

I'm looking for answers so the Board can make

an appropriate decision to address whether or

not to grant this petition.

10:53:09

THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm going to

overrule it.

Mr. Boltz, you may ask a question.

0180

1 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. Again, only relative to ammonia and

3 nitrogen and whatever its impact is on water quality

4 standards. Can you address that at all?

A. Water quality standards or water

10:53:24

6 quality impact?

Q. Just water quality impact.

A. Okay.

Q. Specifically relative to, let's say,

10 aquatic life.

10:53:31

A. Well, it would be three-fold. One,

12 there's a toxicity component on the total ammonia,

13 there's a toxicity component from the unionized

14 ammonia, both chronic and acute.

And then there is an impact on -- 10:53:45

16 there are three parts to the question on water

17 quality impact. One is on the total ammonia and it

18 has some toxicity component.

The second is on the unionized

20 fraction of the ammonia that has both a chronic and 10:54:24

21 acute toxicity component. And the third component

22 is its impact on the consumption of dissolved oxygen

23 as the ammonia is oxidized in the stream.

Q. And I do have questions specifically

0181

1 relative to that oxygen component that you just

2 articulated. What are the effects on the oxygen

3 levels in water when ammonia and nitrogen gets into

4 that water?

A. If we're talking in general terms, it 10:54:55

6 is oxidizing -- the ammonia is oxidized as it

7 travels downstream. And as part of that oxidation,

8 it consumes dissolved oxygen that's in the waterway.

Q. So it lessens the amount of oxygen in

10 the waterway, generally speaking?

10:55:14

A. I don't think I would agree with that

12 statement.

Q. Well, what does it do to the oxygen,

14 it consumes it?

A. Yes, it consumes it. But every time 10:55:22

16 you consume the dissolved oxygen, you have an

17 increase in the amount of oxygen that comes in from

18 reiteration from the surface.

So it's a function of how fast

20 that ammonia is oxidized and how significant the

10:55:36

21 reaeration factor is.

Q. I'm not really looking at the

23 reaeration, I guess I'm only looking at what happens

24 within that water. Is there a corresponding

0182

1 relationship, then, between the amount of ammonia

2 and nitrogen introduced into the water and the

3 amount of oxygen in the water?

A. The answer is no, because you can't

5 ignore the reaeration. I think what you're asking 10:56:04

6 is, is there a relationship -- if I oxidize a pound

7 of ammonia, can I tell you how much oxygen is

8 consumed? I can answer that question.

Q. Well, please do.

A. It's 4.57 pounds of oxygen per pound 10:56:17

11 of ammonia is oxidized.

Q. Thank you.

Well, isn't it true that aquatic

14 life -- dependent upon the species. Because

15 obviously species may require different amounts of 10:56:30

16 oxygen.

It does require varying amounts of

18 objection, though, in that water?

A. In which water?

Q. In -- generally speaking.

10:56:40

A. Yes.

Q. So again, while the proposed effluent

23 limits pursuant to this petition that are being

24 sought are less than the presently adjusted

0183

1 standard, and you understand how they're looking to

2 lower it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. They are still, though, greater than

5 the standard rate, as generally stated in

10:57:07

6 304.122(b)?

A. The requested relief are higher than

8 the three milligram per liter and six milligram per

9 liter number, yes. Otherwise we wouldn't be here

10 today.

10:57:21

Q. Right. We just want to get that

12 clarified, because you did make the point several

13 times in your testimony.

A. I think that was the question I was

15 responding to the Agency's --

10:57:31

Q. I understand.

MR. BOLTZ: No further questions.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.

Mr. Rao, Ms. Liu, do you have any questions

of Mr. Huff?

10:57:51

MR. RAO: We'll wait until they're

done.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. You were

interjecting before.

0184

MR. RAO: The line of thought is

not...

THE HEARING OFFICER: All right. Do

you want to move onto Ms. Postal?

MR. BOLTZ: Yes, sir.

10:58:09

THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

8 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. Ms. Postel, I just want to get, I

10 guess, an understanding of your role. I probably 10:58:14

11 should have started off with that from Mr. Huff

12 initially.

Did your role include a comparable

14 analysis between the Lemont refinery and the other

15 three refineries in the state of Illinois?

10:58:26

A. It did not.

Q. You would agree, though, and you state

18 as much in your testimony, that all four refineries

19 have a very similar technology? Share the same --

A. Based on the review that Bob Stein

10:58:42

21 did.

Q. And again, I'm only reciting your

23 testimony. Is that correct?

A. Based on the review that Bob Stein

0185

1 performed. I did not perform a study.

Q. Okay.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Ms. Postel,

could you keep your voice up please? Thank

you.

10:59:03

6 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. Was part of your inclusion in this

8 process, for purpose of the adjusted standard, did

9 it include in the evaluation of -- to use

10 Mr. Stein's terminology -- a budgetary or an

10:59:15

11 analysis of Citgo for the purpose of pursuing

12 further technological advancements to address the

13 ammonia and nitrogen effluence?

A. No, that was Bob Stein's role.

MR. BOLTZ: No questions, Your Honor. 10:59:38

THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.

Mr. Fort, redirect, I guess, and

then we'll have the technical personnel, I

guess, address their questions.

MR. FORT: Thank you.

10:59:49

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

22 BY MR. FORT:

Q. Ms. Postel, with respect to this last

24 question that counsel inquired about you in terms of

0186

1 doing your role with technological things. You were

2 thinking primarily of the add-on treatment costs?

A. Correct.

Q. And you are involved, though, on a

5 day-to-day basis in terms of the refinery doing

11:00:06

6 things?

A. On the compliance end, not -- yes.

Q. So you are involved in implementing

9 projects that reduce ammonia and nitrogen discharge?

A. I am involved in implementation and 11:00:21

11 development of projects.

12 BY MR. FORT:

Q. Mr. Huff, a couple of clarifying

14 questions. Counsel asked you a series of questions

15 about the ammonia nitrogen conditions. Do you

11:00:42

16 recall those questions? And you gave an answer that

17 there are three factors with ammonia and nitrogen?

A. With respect to water quality impact,

19 yes, sir.

Q. And with respect to water quality

11:00:53

21 impact in the Sanitary and Ship Canal of ammonia,

22 what additional comments would you have concerning

23 the current conditions of ammonia and nitrogen in

24 the Ship Canal and the discharge from Citgo?

0187

A. Well, the current ammonia levels,

2 total ammonia levels, Mr. Stein indicated, are quite

3 low. They are less than one part per million,

4 consistently, all year long.

Q. Excuse me. And the Agency's proposed 11:01:20

6 total ammonia standard is what?

A. Fifteen milligrams per liter, which is

8 significantly higher than what we are asking for

9 here in the way of a site-specific daily maximum and

10 a monthly limit. They are below what the total

11:01:34

11 ammonia water quality proposed is under the UAA's

12 proceedings.

Q. And what is your understanding of the

14 basis for the Agency suggesting 15 milligrams per

15 liter to be an appropriate water quality standard? 11:01:46

A. I believe that's related to some

17 toxicity issue at a total ammonia level of

18 15 milligrams per liter.

Q. You had a second one, the unionized

20 ammonia?

11:01:57

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And how does the conditions in the

23 Ship Canal near the refinery, the Lemont refinery,

24 compare?

0188

A. Well, the current unionized standard

2 is 0.1 milligrams per liter. What has been proposed

3 in the UAA would be equivalent to what the general

4 use ammonia standards are, which varies with

5 seasons, but is lower. But the Ship Canal at --

11:02:23

6 where the Citgo refinery is, consistently meets the

7 0.1 milligrams per liter unionized and it

8 consistently meets the proposed limit, as well, is

9 my understanding.

Q. So even with the discharge levels that 11:02:43

11 Citgo has had over the past several years, those two

12 components, the total ammonia and the unionized

13 ammonia, are still being met?

A. Yes. On an overall contribution, when

15 the stream is at low flow condition, Citgo was

11:03:00

16 contributing about one percent of the ammonia

17 loading on the Ship Canal. And it would be even

18 less at normal flow conditions.

Q. And where's the rest of that coming

20 from, the other 99 percent plus?

11:03:14

A. Primarily from the three large

22 metropolitan water reclamation district plants. Or,

23 I guess, two in this case, the Cal Sag -- is that --

24 is the Cal Sag on there already? Yes, all three of

0189

1 them.

Q. So that just leaves the dissolved

3 oxygen as a possible component; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And what about the contribution of

11:03:36

6 dissolved oxygen demanding materials from the

7 upstream source as compared to the Citgo refinery?

A. Well, a multi-pronged answer. Two

9 adjusted standards ago we borrowed the Metropolitan

10 Water Reclamation District QUAL2E model, to predict 11:03:58

11 dissolved oxygen levels, not only on the Ship Canal

12 and the Des Plaines River but all the way down the

13 Illinois River.

At that time a -- at the level --

15 the maximum daily load that we were requesting at 11:04:20

16 low flow, the impact on DO was a maximum of .06

17 milligrams per liter at the maximum level we're

18 requesting today, that's on the order of .02

19 milligrams per liter, which is well below what one

20 is capable of measuring with a dissolved oxygen

11:04:39

21 meter. So you wouldn't be able to detect that.

Q. So it's a theoretical calculation,

23 it's not something that can be measured?

A. The .02 is a theoretical calculation

0190

1 and cannot be measured.

Q. Now, Mr. Huff, you have been

3 associated with the Citgo refinery for some time;

4 correct?

A. Yes, sir.

11:05:09

Q. And you have consulted with Ms. Postel

7 about various issues that come up relating to

8 wastewater treatment?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you were here earlier today when 11:05:19

11 we talked about the things that she is doing and the

12 refinery is doing to improve their effluent?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have anything you would

15 recommend that they do beyond the things that she 11:05:29

16 mentioned?

A. No, sir.

MR. FORT: And back to Mr. Stein, a

couple of questions.

20 BY MR. FORT:

11:05:49

Q. Mr. Stein, am I correct in saying that

22 that nitrification either works or it doesn't or can

23 you describe how nitrification works? Can you do it

24 halfway to get a little bit of nitrification, or is

0191

1 it there or not there?

A. You're correct. It's basically an all

3 or nothing. Either you're getting biological

4 nitrification or you're not.

Now, obviously, sometimes if you 11:06:14

6 get an inhibition you can start getting a reduction.

7 But it's, basically, either you're nitrifying or

8 you're not. You can't control it -- operate in a

9 half-way manner.

Q. So if a refinery is subject to -- and, 11:06:28

11 I'm sorry. Withdraw that.

Federal BAT requirements include a

13 requirement for nitrification?

A. You have to have some level of

15 nitrification to be able to meet the ammonia

11:06:40

16 nitrogen limits?

Q. So an entity, such as Conoco, would be

18 subject to a federal BAT requirement?

A. Right.

Q. So if they have to do nitrification, 11:06:52

21 they're going to try to do it to meet the BAT, and

22 it's going to be a good -- a low number or not a low

23 number; correct?

A. Correct.

0192

Q. We had several questions about

2 retention time, but what about surface areas, how

3 does that fit into this whole issue?

A. Yeah, surface area is important in

5 trying to get settling and be able to maintain your 11:07:24

6 biomass. And if you look at the secondary clarifier

7 surface area, I believe the Citgo refinery is larger

8 than two of the other refineries.

Basically, they are much better

10 than Conoco-Phillips and ExxonMobil, that they

11:07:48

11 have -- what happens is, the more surface area you

12 have, the lower the gallons per minute per square

13 foot overflow. And the lower the overflow, the

14 better chance that solids have to settle your

15 clarifier, be able to recycle back to the treatment 11:08:13

16 plants. The more surface area, the better the

17 performance of the system.

Q. And the data that you're referring to

19 is in Table 3 to your testimony?

A. Yes, it is.

11:08:26

Q. What about the affects of winter, and

22 what do winter conditions, cold temperature

23 conditions, do to nitrification?

A. Winter conditions can wipe out

0193

1 nitrification. Temperatures less than 68 degrees

2 can inhibit nitrification statistically and lessen,

3 probably about 15 degrees C, which you would

4 probably, you know, lose nitrification.

Q. Thank you.

11:09:04

Going back to the retention issue

7 again and adding more retention time. Will that

8 require more energy be consumed in order to do that?

A. Yeah. Obviously, if you increase the

10 retention time, then you have to add more aeration 11:09:17

11 to maintain the solids in suspension into that

12 system.

And that was where I was getting

14 that the Citgo refinery with the fine bubble

15 diffusers has a very good system that could allow 11:09:32

16 operating at a shorter detention time and still be

17 within the reasonable F to M to get biological

18 nitrification.

Q. But if you went to another technology,

20 an add-on technology of some sort, such as the ones 11:09:48

21 that you looked at here, that would require more

22 horsepower, and hence, more energy consumption?

A. More energy, as I think Mr. Huff

24 alluded to in his looking at the CO2 effect.

0194

Q. Thank you.

MR. FORT: I have one more for

Ms. Postel, I forgot to ask her earlier.

4 BY MR. FORT:

Q. Ms. Postel, what's the zoning

11:10:16

6 classification of the refinery?

A. Industrial.

MR. FORT: That's all I have. Thank

you.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Boltz,

11:10:31

recross?

MR. BOLTZ: Just a couple of small

points of clarification for Mr. Stein, sir.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Proceed.

MR. BOLTZ: Thank you, sir.

11:10:41

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

17 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. Within -- do you have your testimony

19 in front of you, sir?

A. Yes.

11:10:45

Q. Within Page 14 of your testimony...

THE HEARING OFFICER: And we're

referring to Exhibit 10, is it, the

corrected?

0195

MR. BOLTZ: Let me see if I've got an

exhibit number.

MR. FORT: It's the same on both.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Oh, okay.

5 BY MR. BOLTZ:

11:11:03

Q. Do you have that in front of you, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Just your last statement there where

9 you state the ExxonMobil refinery exceeded three

10 milligrams prior to 2005.

11:11:12

A. Yes.

Q. Is that true and correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So subsequent to that time, they've

15 met that limit?

11:11:18

A. Right. As I said, the data I had was

17 for really 2005, 2006.

Q. And then turning back to Page 8 again

19 of your same testimony, within that document, you

20 referred to a couple of sources that justified,

11:11:38

21 apparently, your finding that biological

22 nitrification may not be possible for treatment of

23 refinery wastewaters, a document from 1974 and a

24 document from 1982. You did utilize those documents

0196

1 for purposes of justifying that statement; is that

2 correct?

MR. FORT: Object to the --

mischaracterized what he said.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Boltz?

11:12:04

MR. BOLTZ: It says right here two

documents which justify these findings.

Maybe I'll be even more specific with the

statement.

MR. FORT: Counsel, it's the way you 11:12:12

said it. You said the possibility of not

being able to nitrify.

That wasn't what he was saying

there. I was objecting not to your citation

of these things but how you asked the

11:12:19

question.

MR. BOLTZ: I'll withdraw the question

and --

THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you,

Mr. Boltz.

11:12:24

21 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. Within that paragraph you state that

23 while you feel that there's adequate demonstration

24 that domestic wastewater treatment plants can

0197

1 achieve biological nitrification, you also state,

2 "But this is not the case for the treatment of

3 refinery wastewaters."

Do you see where you stated that

5 in your testimony?

11:12:39

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And then, do you see where in your

8 next sentence you state two documents which justify

9 this finding, and you refer to two documents, one

10 from April 1974 and one from October of 1982; is

11:12:48

11 that correct?

A. Yes.

MR. BOLTZ: That's all I have.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you,

Mr. Boltz.

11:12:58

Any re-redirect Mr. Fort?

MR. FORT: No.

THE HEARING OFFICER: At this time I'm

going to let our technical personnel ask

their questions, if any.

11:13:09

MR. RAO: We have a few questions.

Some of them relate to this whole issue of

detention time and issues raised by the

Agency.

0198

I'll start with the first

question. In the Agency's recommendation,

the Agency refers to Table 46 of Citgo's

technical review document by AWARE

Environmental, that compares the detention 11:13:39

times and clarifier overflows of activated

sludge treatment processes in different

Illinois refineries.

And the Agency notes that Citgo's

wastewater treatment plant aeration basins 11:13:53

have the lowest detention time of the four

refineries. Further, the Agency refers to

the longer detention times of the other

refineries and suggests that these longer

detention times may be at least partially

11:14:07

responsible for more effective and more

consistent nitrification achieved at these

facilities.

And my question goes to

Ms. Postel. In your testimony on Pages 7 and 11:14:18

8, you list the upgrades to the wastewater

treatment plant at Lemont refinery from 1987

to 2007 totaling to $45 million. Between

1987 and 1993 you list the addition of a

0199

second hundred foot diameter secondary

clarifier that doubled the secondary

clarifier's capacity at the plant.

Would you please identify any

other upgrades that were made at the Lemont 11:14:51

refinery that contributed to an increase in

detention time or surface area or a decrease

in overflow rates? I direct the question to

you, if any of the other witnesses want to

answer, that's fine, too.

11:15:09

MR. FORT: Did you hear the question?

MS. POSTEL: Yes, there has not been

any.

MR. RAO: So your testimony pretty

much covers all the upgrades that were made 11:15:24

at the refinery?

MS. POSTEL: I mean, the only -- to

the surface.

MR. HUFF: Well, if I could interject,

the reason for the additional clarifier was 11:15:37

to allow a higher biomass to be carried in

the aeration basins. And if we go back to

Mr. Stein's comments, that removal

nitrification is a function of retention time

0200

and biomass population. Those two terms

actually get multiplied together.

So if you want to improve, in

theory, removal, you have to increase those

two products multiplied together. And so by 11:16:03

adding a clarifier in there, allowed the

refineries to run at higher mixed liquor

suspended solids level, directly intended to

try to improve the performance of the

nitrification.

11:16:17

MR. RAO: So the additional -- the

secondary clarifier, helped in increasing the

food to microorganism ratio?

MR. HUFF: Absolutely. Because you

can now run at higher biomasses, where you 11:16:30

couldn't settle those before any other

clarifiers, you had too many solids, on a

pounds per gallon per square foot basis.

And so, now the refinery has a

very conservative surface overflow rate on a 11:16:44

gallons per day per square foot. But that

then allows them to run with more biomass in

the system that accomplishes the identical

thing to retention.

0201

MR. STEIN: One other item that the

refinery also switched, I'm not exactly sure

of the year, but from surface aerators to

fine bubble diffusers, which also allowed to

operate at a higher mixed liquor suspended 11:17:09

solids level, because you can get much better

oxygen transfer. For example, the fine

bubbles could get up to twice as many pounds

of oxygen per horsepower hour as a surface

aerator.

11:17:28

MS. POSTEL: Just to go back to the

oxygen transfer.

MS. RAO: Yes.

MS. POSTEL: We have three aeration

cells, and in Cell A we upgraded the

11:17:35

diffusers in 2006. In B cell, 2003.

And in C cell we upgraded them in

2001 and did some repairs in 2007.

MR. RAO: And in terms of the overflow

rate from the secondary clarifier, would you 11:17:54

characterize the overflow rates to be pretty

much in the same range of the other

refineries, referring to Table 3 of

Mr. Stein's testimony?

0202

MR. STEIN: Conoco-Phillips would be

higher. It looks like Exxon and Lemont are

similar, and Marathon has a much lower

overflow rate.

MR. RAO: Okay.

11:18:23

MR. STEIN: But typical for industrial

design, you want 500 to 600 gallons per day

per square foot. So all four, when you look

at industry standards, are good overflow

rates.

11:18:39

MR. RAO: And you testified earlier

you're familiar with the food to

microorganism ratio of the other refineries?

MR. STEIN: Unfortunately, it's hard

to get a lot of that information. It's not 11:18:52

publicly available.

MR. RAO: Could I ask the Agency if

the Agency has this information about -- more

specific operational information about the

other refineries that could be provided into 11:19:04

the record?

THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Rao, who are

you asking? We probably should swear them

in.

0203

MR. RAO: Are they going to testify

later?

THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. Well,

they're going to rest and then the Agency

will put on their case.

11:19:19

MR. BOLTZ: Could I --

MR. RAO: Then I can hold off until --

THE HEARING OFFICER: Sure.

MR. BOLTZ: Yeah, maybe I could get a

response real quickly, sir, if I may.

11:19:24

Your Honor, if I may provide a

response. I'm not going to provide

information, I'd like to respond to his

inquiry, if I may.

THE HEARING OFFICER: You may.

11:19:45

MR. BOLTZ: Thank you, sir.

The Agency has those very same

questions, sir. And that's exactly, in fact,

the information we were looking at obtaining

for purposes of this petition.

11:19:54

We have not conducted our own

independent evaluation or investigation of

the same thing but we see the same issues.

MR. FORT: Does the Agency have the

0204

data available?

MR. BOLTZ: Of the other refineries?

MR. FORT: Yes.

MR. BOLTZ: You know, maybe that's a

trade secret issue. I don't know.

11:20:13

MR. LeCRONE: Do I need to be sworn in

to answer any --

MR. RAO: We can wait.

THE HEARING OFFICER: It would make it

cleaner if Sharon would swear in the witness 11:20:23

and then we can go back.

MR. BOLTZ: Absolutely, Your Honor.

(WHEREUPON, the witness was duly

sworn.)

MR. LeCRONE: We probably do. We

11:20:36

haven't looked for it or evaluated it yet.

We, basically, were hoping that more of that

type of an analysis would have been in this

petition. Conoco and ExxonMobil are both

undergoing some plant changes and upgrades 11:20:55

now, so we probably got better information on

what they're looking to do here soon and in

the future than what we do on the food to

microorganism ratios and the mixed liquor

0205

solids. I don't know if we have any of that,

nothing recent anyway.

We probably had the design

characteristics of it way back when, when the

plants were built but nothing recent other 11:21:19

than probably the design specs on their

recent proposed upgrades. But that's not

information that's routinely, you know, asked

for by us or given to us, unless it's at a

design stage where we're evaluating a design 11:21:37

proposal or something.

MR. RAO: Thank you.

MR. BOLTZ: Thank you, sir.

MS. LIU: Just following up on

Mr. Rao's question earlier. You mentioned 11:21:52

that the addition of that second 100 foot

diameter clarifier helps you to have a higher

biomass for the nitrification. Following

along the philosophy that a little is good

more must be better, would it help if you

11:22:06

added another?

MR. HUFF: Another clarifier?

MR. STEIN: I don't believe so. I

mean, you get down to less than 300 gallons

0206

per day per square foot.

I mean, we're at 370, 380. If you

get -- another clarifier could actually cause

worse performance. And what happens is if

you get too much clarification, you have the 11:22:36

solids sitting on the bottom of that

clarifier, they can then start going septic

and then release sulfites, which could, you

know, one, start causing bubbling or gassing

in the clarifier, and two, provide food for 11:22:58

filamentous organisms.

And I have worked at several

industrial biological treatment plants that

we've actually -- because of changes in

production, the flow rates have gone down -- 11:23:17

we've actually had to shut off clarifiers,

because the lower overflow rate was causing

more problems and a poorer quality effluent.

So you can get -- and the same thing, if you

get too long a detention time, you could

11:23:37

actually start getting a deterioration in the

system, that if you look at the relationship

between F to M and settle ability, it's short

of a U-shaped curve, with the F to M -- if

0207

you get very low F to M, then you start

getting very disbursed organisms and poor

settling.

If you get a very high F to M, you

get settling problems. So there's sort of an 11:24:09

optimum range for operating the treatment

plant and the same thing can occur for the

clarification.

MS. LIU: In the Agency's

recommendation on Page 10, they mention that 11:24:21

the ExxonMobil refinery had previously

received relief from the four, just as Citgo

had. But now they are choosing to forego any

further board relief.

They point to the state

11:24:36

construction permit issued in March of 2007

that would allow the construction of

additional clarifiers to add additional

square feet of surface area and increase the

detention time. Subsequently, ExxonMobil

11:24:47

wrote to the Agency indicating that it will

meet the lower limits.

We've talked a lot about this

already.

0208

MR. BOLTZ: Right.

MS. LIE: Somewhere along the line

ExxonMobil sees the benefit of the additional

clarifiers in the square footage. I'm not

sure how it fits into the curve, but perhaps 11:25:10

you could relate what Citgo's situation is to

how it differs from ExxonMobil and how you

wouldn't benefit from necessarily doing the

same thing.

MR. HUFF: If I could answer that

11:25:24

question. I prepared that construction

permit application.

MR. BOLTZ: Your Honor, if I may

interpose an objection. Should the same

discussions that we previously had with

11:25:32

respect to Mr. Huff's testimony regarding

comparables in other refineries, the trade

secrets or how they proceed and shouldn't

apply here, in terms of what he's going to

articulate on behalf of Citgo on the same

11:25:42

issue?

MR. HUFF: With all due respect, I'm

not going to divulge any trade secrets.

THE HEARING OFFICER: There you go.

0209

Objection overruled.

You may proceed.

MR. HUFF: As I mention in one of the

earlier questions, Exxon Mobil has elected to

put their wet gas scrubber directly into

11:25:59

their aeration basin. The are expanding a

clarifier solely because of the more dense

water that they -- the settling velocities

will be slower. So they had to expand the

clarifiers because of how they elected to

11:26:11

handle the wet gas scrubber.

You recall in Citgo's case, they

elected not to put the wet gas scrubber

through the biological treatment system, they

have a separate purge treatment unit for the 11:26:27

oxidation. And that's the difference.

MS. LIU: Thank you.

MR. RAO: May I ask a follow-up?

Since you've testified that you're familiar

with the ExxonMobil treatment plant, could 11:26:45

you -- if you have the knowledge about the

treatment plant as to what changes they have

done that made that plant come into

compliance?

0210

MR. HUFF: I'm going to answer that

question. It's not quite that issue.

As the Agency's well aware,

ExxonMobil was proceeding to also get another

site specific -- they had met with the Agency 11:27:16

approximately after a month after the BP was

in the newspaper. ExxonMobil re-evaluated

and decided to drop that request.

So that's what changed.

MR. RAO: Okay. Well, do you think 11:27:39

the plant can operate within the applicable

regulations?

MR. HUFF: My opinion?

MR. RAO: Yes.

MR. HUFF: I agree with Mr. Stein that 11:27:54

before I say definitively, I would want five

years of performance data. They have

approximately two years without the wet gas

scrubber going through that system.

They have no data yet, other than 11:28:05

their laboratory pilot test, that says that

they will not have any effect. I believe

that there is a considerable uncertainty as

to the success of that plant when the wet gas

0211

scrubber comes online.

MR. RAO: Thank you.

MS. LIU: Just to provide an

additional piece of information into the

record, on Citgo's petition on Page 16, as 11:28:29

well as Exhibit B of the AWARE report, on

Pages 40 to 56, you described the four

alternatives that were evaluated to the

current treatment process. And Mr. Stein

mentions in his prefiled testimony that

11:28:45

additional detention time would be provided

in the two-stage biological systems with the

fixed film system as a second stage.

Just for an additional piece of

information, how much additional detention 11:29:00

time would it provide?

MR. STEIN: I guess the -- in going

through a fixed filling system, what you have

is the actual -- in other words, suspended

growth system, such as activated sludge, you 11:29:21

have the microorganisms that are in

suspension. In a fixed filling system, you

actually have a media that the microorganisms

grow on.

0212

So there's a little bit of a

difference. But we've got over six million

square feet of surface area for the

nitrifiers to grow on.

And the reason to go to a

11:29:52

two-stage system, instead of longer detention

times, is you have a better chance of not

having these inhibitory factors in a

two-stage system than you do in just a longer

detention time in a single stage system. And 11:30:08

that's the reason that we thought that was a

way to go.

I hope that...

MS. LIU: Yes.

MR. RAO: I have a question for

11:30:28

Ms. Postel.

In your prefiled testimony at

Page 10, you said that the refinery will

continue to investigate improvements to it's

existing wastewater treatment systems. And 11:30:42

you say that focusing on better solids

handling from the desalter holds the greatest

promise for achieving improved wastewater

treatment performance on a consistent basis.

0213

Further, the options that will be

investigated include in-situ solid removal

system, increase tankage to allow brine

segregation, amine management and a distant

chemical usage to reduce emulsification in 11:31:13

primary treatment units. The propose of this

standard language includes a sunset provision

limiting relief to a five-year period.

Does Citgo believe it will take

five years to investigate the options listed 11:31:29

in your testimony? Also would you please

provide a proposed timetable for

investigating these options.

MS. POSTEL: Well, for the in-situ

solid removal, there is a group of refineries 11:31:45

across the country that are working on

various technologies. This has been ongoing

for about two years.

The timetable for that, I don't

know. I don't even think the refineries that 11:31:58

are involved and the technical people

involved in that analysis have any timetable

that they could follow.

MR. FORT: Mr. Rao, let me say this,

0214

that we would certainly be amenable and

willing to put forth such a proposal. I

actually had hoped we were going to get the

Agency engaged in that kind of a dialogue and

investigation plan.

11:32:28

And we can't control it all

because there's third parties that we can't

control their schedule, but I think we could

propose a schedule of action over the next

five years.

11:32:38

MR. RAO: That would be helpful.

Because you have proposed a sunset provision,

and it could be helpful for the Board to see

what activities that Citgo would be

undertaking during this period of time.

11:32:47

MR. FORT: Okay.

MR. RAO: That's all we have. Thank

you very much.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.

Mr. Fort, do you rest?

11:33:03

MR. FORT: We're resting.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Let's go off the

record for a second.

0215

(WHEREUPON, discussion was had

off the record.)

(WHEREUPON, a recess was had.)

THE HEARING OFFICER: We are back on

the record.

11:55:34

Once again, Citgo has rested their

case in chief. Mr. Boltz from the IEPA has

got the floor.

MR. BOLTZ: Yes, sir. We would like

to call Darin LeCrone.

11:55:45

THE HEARING OFFICER: He's already

previously been sworn in.

DARIN LeCRONE,

14 called as a witness herein, having been previously

15 duly sworn and having testified, was examined and

16 testified further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

18 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. Would you go ahead and state your name

20 for the record and spell your last name.

11:55:51

A. My name is Darin LeCrone,

22 L-e-C-R-O-N-E.

Q. And where are you employed, sir?

A. Illinois EPA.

0216

Q. And what do you do at the Illinois

2 EPA?

A. I'm in the industrial unit of the

4 permit section. I'm currently the acting unit

5 manager.

11:56:06

Q. And as part of your job duties, do you

7 have access to various oil refineries in the state

8 of Illinois, specifically their effluent limits?

A. The reported data, yeah, the DMR data.

Q. Have you had the opportunity to -- or 11:56:27

11 have you ever had the opportunity to look at the

12 reported data relative to ExxonMobil in the state of

13 Illinois?

A. Yes.

(WHEREUPON, a certain document

11:56:38

was marked Respondent Exhibit

No. 1 for identification, as of

8/20/08.)

19 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. I'm going to hand you what I just

11:56:38

21 marked Exhibit No. 1.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Your Honor, if I

may approach the bench and provide additional

copies?

0217

THE HEARING OFFICER: You may.

MR. BOLTZ: Thank you.

MR. FORT: Excuse me, what is the

number?

THE HEARING OFFICER: IEPA Exhibit

11:56:59

No. 1.

7 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. Can you go ahead and identify this

9 document for the Board?

A. It's kind of a condensed printout of 11:57:05

11 the submitted DNR data for ExxonMobil for ammonia

12 and nitrogen for April of '03 to March of '08.

Q. And how do you know that?

A. The dates, the left-hand column is the

15 year, the month and the day. This table is

11:57:32

16 condensed now, I took out some of the columns.

It's -- the DMR system used to be

18 called PCS, now it's ISIS or something. The USEPA

19 DMR data entry system is what this came out of.

We just pulled -- had our

11:57:52

21 compliance section pull just the ammonia nitrogen

22 data, both concentration and load -- reported

23 load -- mass loadings. And it also gives the --

24 like this one in particular, gives the reported

0218

1 monthly average concentration, the monthly average

2 limit, the daily maximum reported concentration, the

3 daily maximum limit, and then the average maximum

4 mass loadings and limitations as well.

Q. Can you go ahead and -- when you said 11:58:19

6 that in order, can you describe which column that's

7 in, just so the record can be clear?

A. Yeah. My description was from left to

9 right. The first column is the date, the DMR date.

The second column is the reported 11:58:31

11 monthly average concentration. The next column is

12 the monthly average limits. And then the -- and

13 then there's units, obviously.

Then the daily max reported

15 concentration, the daily max limit. Then the

11:58:45

16 monthly average reported mass loading. And then it

17 kind of jumps -- jumped two pages to get to the end

18 columns on that.

And the -- it should be the --

20 yeah, the mass. The monthly average reported mass 11:59:01

21 loading, monthly average mass employment. The daily

22 maximum mass loading and daily max mass limit.

And that's from left to right

24 across this table.

0219

Q. And that spreads over several pages,

2 because --

A. Yes. That was as condensed down as I

4 could get it. As close to fitting on one page as it

5 would go.

11:59:22

Q. Does this appear to be a true and

7 correct version of those numbers, which are

8 available in the normal ordinary course of your job

9 duties?

A. Yes.

11:59:34

Q. During the course of -- let me

12 withdraw the question.

Pursuant to the petition that's

14 being sought here under 304.122(b), there's been a

15 common utilization of the term "three-six"?

11:59:47

A. Uh-huh.

Q. How does the three-six -- what is

18 that, first of all?

A. It's a state effluent standard that

20 applies to the Illinois river system. It's a three 11:59:57

21 milligrams per liter monthly average limit of six

22 milligrams daily maximum.

Q. And where would that fit on this

24 Exhibit 1?

0220

A. Well, the three-six doesn't -- because

2 those limits didn't apply to this facility at that

3 time, it would be the nine and the 23 -- the nine

4 and the 20 theory or the average maximum limits.

5 The three and the six didn't apply at this time, so 12:00:24

6 they're not on this table.

Q. With the knowledge that you have

8 today, will they apply in the future?

A. It's anticipated, yes. ExxonMobil

10 has, apparently, decided not to seek a renewal, or 12:00:37

11 whatever you phrase it, of their standard

12 site-specific rule. And so the three and six limits

13 would apply to them. That's being proposed at this

14 point.

The permit is still under review. 12:00:53

16 It's not even been public noticed yet. So there

17 isn't even an official draft at this point, but that

18 is the route we are heading.

Q. Thank you.

(WHEREUPON, a certain document was 12:01:05

marked Respondent's Deposition

Exhibit No. 2 for identification,

as of 8/20/08.)

0221

1 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. I hand you what's marked as Exhibit

3 No. 2.

MR. BOLTZ: I'm going to hand out

copies to the folks here.

12:01:14

MR. FORT: Thank you.

7 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. I'm going to hand you what's been

9 marked as Exhibit No. 2. Can you identify this

10 document?

12:01:35

A. Yeah, it's similar data for Marathon

12 Robinson refinery.

Q. And previously during this hearing I

14 referred to Marathon Oil; is that the same?

A. Yes. That is this facility, correct. 12:01:52

Q. Now, you were kind enough to go

17 through the columns before and extrapolating or

18 clarifying exactly what they mean. Could you do the

19 same thing for the record today, please?

A. Yeah, on this one it's a little

12:02:09

21 different in that at the time the Marathon facility

22 did not have concentration limits, so there's not

23 columns for concentration limits on the table.

24 They're currently still operating under this permit,

0222

1 which is from '89.

There is a public notice draft of

3 changes. But this one has the date -- the DMR date

4 in the left-hand column, and this one is just the

5 monthly average reported concentration limit. And 12:02:38

6 then the reported mass loading and limits kind of

7 across -- it's missing something.

This is just the reported data,

9 and no limits are on this.

Q. If we were to apply the three-six

12:02:55

11 standards for Marathon, where would the three and

12 the six be situated on this chart?

A. Well, it would be -- there's not a

14 column -- a direct column on this one for that.

15 Because this one is set different.

12:03:08

Why this data came up different

17 out of the same system, I'm not really sure. The

18 limits didn't come out on it.

But there's no concentration

20 limits that applied at Marathon at this time. So 12:03:19

21 there wouldn't be a concentration limit column on

22 it. Once a new permit is issued, there would be.

Q. Is there an effluent level that was

24 articulated that would match up with the three?

0223

A. That would be the concentration

2 column, which is the second column.

Q. And then the six?

A. Well, there isn't a maximum -- this is

5 actually reported as max on here, but I don't think 12:03:45

6 it is.

Q. Okay.

A. It's listed as the maximum and not the

9 average. But I think, for some reason, the

10 compliant system spit it out in the wrong column. 12:03:55

Because they're not required to

12 report average and maximum on the concentration

13 anyway. It's a concentration that corresponded to

14 the mass limit.

Q. All right.

12:04:08

MR. BOLTZ: One final one here. I'm

going to mark this as Exhibit No. 3,

Your Honor.

(WHEREUPON, a certain document was

marked Respondent's Exhibit

No. 3 for identification, as of

8/20/08.)

23 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. I hand you what's been marked Exhibit

0224

1 No. 3. Can you go ahead and identify this document?

A. This is the reported DMR data for

3 ammonia for Citgo Petroleum Lemont refinery.

Q. And if you could go through the

5 process of describing what each column means?

12:05:20

A. The -- from left to right in the

7 left-hand column is the DMR date. In the next

8 column is the reported monthly average

9 concentration. The monthly average concentration

10 limit, the reported daily maximum, daily maximum

12:05:33

11 limit and in the mass loadings, reported average

12 limit. Reported max and the maximum limit.

Q. And just for clarification, as we go

14 through each one of these exhibits, just very

15 briefly for the benefit of the Board and the Hearing 12:05:59

16 Officer, do you know the regulatory standard that,

17 say, Exhibit No. 1 Exxon, has to meet?

A. The concentration limits or mass

19 loading, mass limit?

Q. Relative specifically to ammonia.

12:06:20

A. This data was based on their current

22 permit with their adjusted standard of nine and 23,

23 for average and maximum concentration limits.

Q. And again, that's stated right on

0225

1 Exhibit No. 1?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, with respect to Marathon Oil, do

4 you know the regulatory standard that they would

5 have to meet or they've met previously?

12:06:44

A. Previously, it was just based on the

7 federal BAT categorical standard. The current draft

8 permit that has been public noticed has water

9 quality based effluent limits.

Q. And again, we already know Citgo,

12:07:02

11 so...

With respect to Conoco-Phillips,

13 and you'll notice, obviously, the absence of that

14 information, which has already been articulated to

15 some degree, in the prefiling testimony, do you know 12:07:13

16 the regulatory standard that they had to previously

17 meet pursuant to this hearing?

A. They are meeting the mass limits --

19 the federal BAT mass limits. They do not -- they

20 aren't subject to the three and six standard because 12:07:28

21 they're not on the Illinois River system, they're on

22 the Mississippi River.

So they have slightly different

24 limits or expectations, or applicable standards

0226

1 even. So they are subject currently to water

2 quality base effluent limits for ammonia. Most

3 likely due to the enormous amount of mixing

4 available in the Mississippi River.

So they are just subject to the 12:07:55

6 federal BAT categorical mass limits.

MR. BOLTZ: I have no further

questions.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you,

Mr. Boltz.

12:08:04

Mr. Fort, cross?

MR. FORT: I just saw this data. I

think I heard that one of the exhibits was

incomplete or there was an inaccuracy

somewhere in one of the tables.

12:08:14

THE HEARING OFFICER: Is that the

Conoco one?

MR. FORT: Yeah.

MR. BOLTZ: No, it's Marathon.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Marathon?

12:08:20

MR. FORT: Conoco is not even here.

MR. BOLTZ: Right. It's not here.

MR. FORT: It is condensed data, it's

not even full data from which it's

0227

extrapolated. I'd have to reserve asking

questions later.

And I can ask a few questions now,

I believe, but I want to reserve the ability

to actually look at the data and form some 12:08:37

reasonable questions that don't waste

everybody's time while I plow around and try

to figure out what's behind this.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Will this data

ever be available?

12:08:48

MR. BOLTZ: I'm sorry?

THE HEARING OFFICER: This incomplete

data from Marathon and then --

MR. BOLTZ: Well, Your Honor, at your

pleasure, we can look at the data again. You 12:08:57

know, we've only looked to provide the data

that is relative to the ammonia and nitrogen,

obviously, petitioned today.

We can take a look at the data

again and make sure that we have all that we 12:09:07

need.

MR. LeCRONE: Yeah. The issue for me

with the Marathon data is it's reported on

here as a daily max concentration. I don't

0228

really -- I think it might be the average and

not the max.

But I need to verify that this is

how it came out of the compliance system.

But other than that, there's nothing else

12:09:28

emitted from it. I think that max should be

an average is the only difference.

MR. BOLTZ: Just that verbiage that

says the max?

MR. LeCRONE: Yes. I suspect that may 12:09:39

be the case. I need to verify that with

compliance, I wasn't able to do so.

THE HEARING OFFICER: All right.

Thank you.

MR. BOLTZ: We just want to get the 12:09:45

information.

MR. FORT: Well, counsel, I really

appreciate your willingness to do that, but

we did ask the Agency for this six months

ago.

12:09:53

MR. BOLTZ: Your Honor, you know --

MR. FORT: We were told, "See what you

can find out from public available channels."

THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. We've

0229

been over that.

Mr. Fort?

MR. FORT: As long as I can reserve

asking more questions.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Well, yes, I

12:10:03

guess, asking more questions when we continue

on the record.

MR. FORT: Yes.

THE HEARING OFFICER: We're looking at

right now September 18th from 9:00 to 10:00, 12:10:09

but I still have to clear it with the

coordinator here.

MR. FORT: I'm going to give it my

best shot here of asking questions, but...

THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay.

12:10:19

MR. FORT: My technical people haven't

had a chance to read this very thoroughly.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Fair enough.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

20 BY MR. FORT:

12:10:26

Q. Let's start with the Marathon Ashland

22 data on this.

Why is there so little data here

24 in comparison to everything else? We've got four

0230

1 pages of data on Citgo and a page and a half?

A. Well, the reason is because of the

3 way -- there's not as many columns for Marathon

4 because they don't have two columns for reported

5 concentrations and two columns of reported

12:10:48

6 concentration limits. So condensing it down, it fit

7 on the two pages, taking all the blank columns out

8 of the spreadsheet.

Where the other two, because they

10 have more columns that -- there's like -- I think 12:11:02

11 they are four pages apiece. The first two have the

12 concentration columns and part of the mass loading.

13 The last two pages are at the end of the spreadsheet

14 that got bumped to the next two pages.

So it's a fact they're not having 12:11:17

16 as many columns in the spreadsheet.

Q. Well, I'm looking at this and I see

18 one data point a month?

A. Right.

Q. Is that all that they're sampling?

12:11:25

A. This is what was reported on the DMR.

22 So they're -- you know, they're reporting an

23 average, which is why I wanted to see if -- I need

24 to verify this is an average or a max.

0231

Q. Well, it wouldn't be -- surely, they

2 are only not --

A. Well, it's reported --

Q. Let me ask a question.

Surely they're taking more than 12:11:44

6 one sample a month; aren't they?

A. Probably.

Q. Or is the Agency --

A. I think at least two a week --

MR. LeCRONE: Isn't it?

12:11:50

11 BY MR. FORT:

Q. Well, two a week is what Citgo does.

13 But --

A. Two a week.

Q. They are collecting two a week?

12:11:57

A. Right.

Q. So that within these -- these are

18 average numbers then, you think?

MR. BOLTZ: We need to verify that

the -- the one piece we need to verify.

12:12:05

MR. FORT: It's your exhibit.

MR. BOLTZ: This is how it came out.

THE HEARING OFFICER: One at a time

please, gentlemen.

0232

1 BY MR. FORT:

Q. Let me direct your attention to the --

3 there's -- the second page for 2080331. So, I

4 assume, that's March of 2008.

A. Yes.

12:12:24

Q. There's an entry at the bottom that's

7 blank. There's an entry of maybe eight lines up

8 that says 3.35 milligrams per liter.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And there's an entry above that for 12:12:35

11 2.68 milligrams per liter. All the data is of

12 March 31, 2008.

Do you see those three?

A. Yes.

Q. Why is that?

12:12:45

A. I do not know.

This -- we asked for the DMR data

18 back from '04, essentially, and this is what the

19 compliant system gave us.

Q. Okay.

12:12:56

A. Now, they -- one issue may be that

22 they switched from the old PCS system to a new USEPA

23 compliance data system. I don't know if it had

24 something to do with the database switchover.

0233

This is what it spit out for us,

2 and I put it in the most reasonably usable format we

3 could.

Q. Do you know if Marathon is discharging

5 all their wastewater through their NPS permanent

12:13:21

6 outfall, or are they hauling some of that wastewater

7 offsite?

A. I believe they have been hauling some

9 offsite out of state.

Q. And do you know how much they are

12:13:33

11 hauling off offsite?

A. Volumewise, I don't know. I --

Q. Do you know if they're hauling the

14 purge treatment unit material offsite and out of

15 state?

12:13:43

A. I believe it is a waste treatment

17 associated with a scrubber operation. But I don't

18 know for sure.

Q. So it's an operation that had a lot of

20 ammonia in it; correct?

12:13:51

A. Well, normal -- no more than normal

22 refinery wastewater. I mean, it's like the scrubber

23 discharge from Citgo -- from what I understand, that

24 the waste stream -- instead of treating it onsite,

0234

1 they're hauling it offsite.

Q. And you know that Citgo had to put in

3 extra treatment --

A. Yes.

Q. -- specifically for ammonia for their 12:14:09

6 purge treatment; correct?

A. Right.

Q. So this doesn't even include all that

9 water, which isn't even reflected in this data?

A. Correct.

12:14:20

Q. And you don't know if they were

12 worried about the effect of their purge treatment

13 unit water on their regular wastewater treatment

14 plant and what that would do to the nitrification of

15 the regular waste treatment?

12:14:36

MR. BOLTZ: Objection. Calls for

speculation. He asked for state of mind of

another individual.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Overruled. He

can answer, if he's able.

12:14:41

21 BY THE WITNESS:

A. I don't know if that was the reason or

23 not, honestly. I don't think it had to do with

24 ammonia. I think it had to do with another

0235

1 parameter.

But I am not 100 percent sure on

3 that.

4 BY MR. FORT:

Q. Do you know if they do any treatment 12:14:53

6 for ammonia from the purge treatment unit process?

A. Off the top of my head, no, I don't

8 know.

Q. I'm sorry, why is there no Conoco

10 data?

12:15:33

A. It failed in trying to generate some.

12 I don't know what's available, honestly. I didn't

13 get any.

Q. Going back to Marathon, it appears

15 that Marathon has had an exceedance of three on a 12:15:53

16 monthly average within the last year?

A. It would have been an exceedance if

18 they were subject to the three and six standard,

19 correct. But they weren't subject to a

20 concentration limit at that point.

12:16:06

Q. Do you know what their mass limit is?

A. The current permit that's in effect,

23 which is dated 1989, it was -- average mass limit of

24 763 pounds a day of ammonia and a daily max of

0236

1 1,679.

Q. And that would have been before the

3 purge treatment unit water; correct? Because they

4 weren't doing the controls at that point?

A. Yes.

12:16:50

Q. Mr. LeCrone, you're just being offered

7 by the Agency to present data on other refineries;

8 is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. You have no other role in this hearing 12:17:08

11 other than presenting the data?

A. Not directly, I guess. I don't know

13 what -- I'm not sure what you mean exactly.

Q. You're not intending to testify to any

15 of the subjects here, other than the data you just 12:17:24

16 presented?

A. No.

Q. Do you consider yourself an expert in

19 the treatment of ammonia and nitrogen in an

20 industrial setting?

12:17:36

A. I don't know that I'd call myself an

22 expert, but it's my job to review signed proposals

23 by dischargers and --

Q. Well, has anybody asked you for advice

0237

1 on how to get to a particular effluent

2 concentration?

MR. BOLTZ: I'm going to object.

Beyond the scope of direct examination.

Your Honor, he's only -- and I

12:17:58

think it's been clarified perfectly by the

petitioner that he's only here to proffer

this data. He's done that.

If his cross-examination relative

to the data is being proffered, then,

12:18:08

obviously, I have no problem. But if he's

going into these other outer boundaries to

discuss apples and oranges, I'm not sure

that's appropriate.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Fort?

12:18:17

MR. FORT: Well, I'm trying to clarify

what he is going to testify, and there's not

something else to be, you know, brought in

orally later.

THE HEARING OFFICER: I think he just 12:18:25

answered, he was going to be brought in to

testify to these charts, graphs.

So objection sustained.

MR. BOLTZ: Thank you.

0238

1 BY MR. FORT:

Q. And you're not being called to testify

3 to contradict any of the testimony that Mr. Stein

4 has offered today?

A. No.

12:19:03

Q. Or Mr. Huff?

A. No.

Q. Or Ms. Postel?

A. No.

Q. Thank you.

12:19:08

THE HEARING OFFICER: I'm sorry, sir.

Mr. -- if I can ask a question of

Mr. LeCrone.

Did you help prepare the

recommendation?

12:19:18

MR. LeCRONE: I did.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay.

18 BY MR. FORT:

Q. So let me make sure I understand. I'm

20 looking at Agency Exhibit 1, which I believe is the 12:19:53

21 Exxon data. Do you have it?

MR. BOLTZ: We have it before us.

23 BY MR. FORT:

Q. Does the witness have it?

0239

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. I'm just going in the far

3 left-hand column --

A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- with number -- the first number at 12:20:15

6 the top of that column is 1.1 milligrams per liter?

A. Yes.

Q. That is a monthly average?

A. It should be the reported monthly

10 average concentration.

12:20:26

Q. Okay. And going down I see -- it

12 looks like April 30, '04, a 10.7 milligram per liter

13 monthly average; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was higher then their

12:20:38

16 site-specific rule?

A. Correct.

Q. And the next month, May 31, of '04, a

19 12.1 milligram perfect liter?

A. Yes.

12:20:47

Q. And again, that's higher than what

22 they had in their authorized rule?

A. That's correct.

Q. And again, in December of '04,

0240

1 3.9 milligram per liter, which was less than the

2 rule but above the three milligram per liter rule

3 we've been talking about?

A. I'm sorry, which one was that?

Yes.

12:21:16

Q. And you don't have an opinion of

7 whether or not the Exxon Mobil strategy of taking

8 their purge treatment unit or wet gas scrubber water

9 into their existing ammonia nitrogen system will

10 adversely affect their ammonia nitrogen performance; 12:21:31

11 do you?

MR. BOLTZ: I'm going to object to

this line of questioning. I think we've

already gone over this.

My objection has been sustained, 12:21:39

that we shouldn't extend our testimony beyond

the limits of direct examination.

MR. FORT: Well, Mr. Hearing Officer,

he said he reviewed permit applications. So

I guess I could ask him the foundation

12:21:49

question did you review the ExxonMobil permit

application, but...

23 BY THE WITNESS:

A. I didn't review the ExxonMobil.

0241

THE HEARING OFFICER: Objection

overruled.

You can answer.

MR. FORT: Can you read back the

question for him?

MR. BOLTZ: I think he already

answered the question.

THE HEARING OFFICER: He did answer

the question.

MR. FORT: I apologize.

MR. BOLTZ: He said no.

12 BY THE WITNESS:

A. No, I did not review the Exxon Mobil

14 application.

MR. FORT: The next question -- the 12:22:12

question before that is the one that I was

asking to be read back.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Can you read

that back?

(WHEREUPON, the record was

12:22:15

read by the reporter.)

22 BY THE WITNESS:

A. I don't -- at this point, I didn't

24 review the specifics of their design or their

0242

1 proposed treatment plant expansion. I don't know

2 what their design parameters were exactly, what they

3 were shooting for.

So I can't -- I don't have an

5 opinion one way or the other on it, because I wasn't 12:23:00

6 involved in reviewing the specifics of their design.

7 BY MR. FORT:

Q. But you heard Mr. Huff's testimony

9 about his consideration of the potential risk and

10 adverse impact on --

12:23:10

A. Yes.

Q. Do you disagree with his testimony?

A. No, I don't disagree with it.

Q. Thank you.

So, in a real sense, ExxonMobil 12:23:18

16 doesn't yet have a permit that requires them to meet

17 three and six milligrams per liter; correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And they are still acting under a

20 site-specific rule; correct?

12:23:31

A. That's correct.

Q. What the Agency has said is that so

23 far ExxonMobil doesn't think they need to have

24 further relief?

0243

A. Correct.

Q. And they are making some sort of a

3 bet, if you will, on how good their finished scale

4 workup is, in terms of how it effects the ammonia

5 and nitrogen; correct?

12:23:51

MR. BOLTZ: Objection to the

characterization of bet. It, again, calls

for speculation of what Exxon is doing in

relationship to a bet.

Object to the form of the

12:23:56

question.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah.

Mr. Fort?

MR. FORT: Well, let me rephrase the

question then.

12:24:02

THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah, that would

be -- try doing it that way. Thanks.

18 BY MR. FORT:

Q. So at this point in time, all you have

20 is a statement from ExxonMobil that they're not

12:24:09

21 intending to extend their site-specific rule?

A. That's my understanding, yes. I

23 haven't read or seen a letter, statement from them,

24 but that's my understanding, correct.

0244

Q. And at this point, do you know if they

2 are not -- that they are not discharging from their

3 PTU or wet gas scrubber unit into their ammonia

4 nitrogen treatment facility?

A. I don't believe that they are. I

12:24:34

6 believe it's still under construction.

Q. And so you don't know what the result

8 is going to be when they let loose of that water

9 into their ammonia and nitrogen treatment

10 facilities?

12:24:43

A. No.

Q. And you're not in a position to

13 predict that they will be able to comply with the

14 three-six after they turn on their wet gas scrubber

15 or purge treatment?

12:24:54

A. Not with a hundred percent certainty,

17 no.

Q. Do you know what their schedule is?

A. I do not.

Q. Were you involved with the discussions 12:25:04

21 of the overall schedule that ExxonMobil had to do

22 the wastewater treatment improvement?

MR. BOLTZ: I'm going to, again,

objection. Beyond the scope of direct

0245

examination.

We're just on a fishing expedition

at this point.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Sharon, can you

read that back, please?

12:25:24

(WHEREUPON, the record was

read by the reporter.)

THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. I'm going

to sustain that.

Mr. Fort, would you like to

12:25:37

respond to Mr. Boltz' --

MR. FORT: Well, the point here is

that we had very -- the Agency keeps trying

to say they ought to be the same. And one of

the things that happened here is that the

12:25:49

settlement agreement, that Citgo had with

USEPA and the State of Illinois, had a much

faster schedule.

And the Board will recall that we

had to come in and do a variance under

12:26:01

expedited situations to get the TDS relief to

get the permit to get ourselves started. So

we did a design of a wastewater treatment

system that was very expedited.

0246

For whatever reason, ExxonMobil

had a more -- I could say orderly process,

but that might be taken in the wrong way --

it had more time in their schedule. We even

had time to do a site-specific rule change 12:26:22

and still have them on schedule.

So just trying to point out that

they're not the same.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Yeah. And you

know what, and it is on record, and I'm

12:26:30

looking at Section 101.626. It's, "The

Hearing Officer may admit evidence that is

material, relevant and would be relied upon

by a prudent person in the course of

conduct." The conduct of serious affairs. 12:26:42

And I'd have to agree with

Mr. Fort. So I'm going to overrule

Mr. Boltz' objection.

MR. BOLTZ: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.

12:26:53

I'm not sure if you can answer it,

Mr. LeCrone.

MR. LeCRONE: I think I remember the

question.

0247

1 BY THE WITNESS:

A. I was not involved with Exxon's

3 scheduling permitwise or related to a content order

4 with the USEPA or anything like that. I have not

5 been a permit reviewer for ExxonMobil, and I've

12:27:09

6 only, basically, taken on any role in their

7 permitting whatsoever now, in my acting manager

8 position, with the unit, so...

MR. FORT: Okay. That's what I -- all

I have for the moment. But I would like to 12:27:25

reserve being able to look at the data.

I'd like to request that the other

information that is used to come up with

this, maybe this will come out as you do the

QC on the Marathon data. You know, the other 12:27:41

information that led to these documents

(indicating).

THE HEARING OFFICER: We'll talk a

little bit more about that off record and

then bring it on record. And I'm just

12:27:51

looking -- well, we can go off record and

talk about that.

But, Sharon, for now, we'll go on

record.

0248

Redirect, Mr. Boltz?

MR. BOLTZ: I have known, Your Honor.

THE HEARING OFFICER. Okay.

MR. BOLTZ: I would just reserve the

opportunity to clarify that Marathon max

12:28:04

versus average verbiage within the charts,

just so we can all be on the same page and

the Board can have the correct information.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Terrific.

Thank you, sir.

12:28:15

Mr. Rao, Ms. Liu?

12 BY MR. RAO:

Q. The Agency's recommendations -- before

14 I ask the question...

THE HEARING OFFICER: We can go off 12:28:51

the record.

(WHEREUPON, discussion was had

off the record.)

THE HEARING OFFICER: Back on the

record.

12:29:23

MR. RAO: ExxonMobil's construction

permit issued on March 19th, 2007, not only

includes the construction of additional

clarifiers, but also specifies the addition

0249

of a purge treatment unit, consisting of

combined reactor/clarifier and heat

exchanger, as well as the addition of an

integrated biological system consisting of

anoxic and outer aeration zone with

12:29:52

recirculation and a de-aeration

transition flocculation chamber. This from

the Agency's recommendation Attachment 1.

Why did the Agency single out the

addition of clarifiers and increase surface 12:30:05

area as a part of ExxonMobil's upgrade

potentially responsible for allowing the

refinery to meet the applicable ammonia

limits?

MR. LeCRONE: It's basically just an 12:30:21

example of something we'd like to see Citgo

explore. You know, and it's kind of been --

our theme through this is it has as many

open-ended questions as it conclusions that

we've reached.

12:30:38

And that if Exxon thinks they can

meet three-six through whatever upgrades

their doing in addition to adding scrubber

water, okay, will a similar approach, you

0250

know, loadings, operationalwise or whatever

work for them. And so, that's kind of why we

brought that up as an example of something

we'd like to see considered or at least

explained why something like that wouldn't 12:31:03

work for them.

MR. RAO: So these two factors that --

you know, you talk about the detention time

and additional surface area. The ones that

you didn't see Citgo focus on in their

12:31:30

addition; is that what you're saying?

MR. LeCRONE: Yeah. It was mentioned

in there and brought up as, you know, in

comparing the differences and similarities

between, you know, the treatment systems of 12:31:42

the various sights. And it seemed to stop

there and not further explain, okay, well,

here's one difference, but why -- you know,

why they didn't evaluate those differences --

MR. RAO: Okay.

12:31:57

MR. LeCRONE: -- you know.

We know that they're all using,

essentially, similar treatment technologies.

I mean, that's no big secret.

0251

And it's expected within these --

you know, areas, such as -- you know, surface

loading rates and detention times.

MR. RAO: Yeah.

MR. LeCRONE: Where there is a

12:32:10

difference, there didn't seem to be enough of

an explanation as to how that might affect

one facility versus another. There may very

be a very simple explanation for it, but I'm

not aware of what it would be and I was kind 12:32:22

of hoping that they could clue me in on it.

MR. RAO: Okay. Thank you.

MS. LIU: One last question. Could

you please clarify which water bodies

ExxonMobile and Marathon discharge to?

12:32:37

MR. LeCRONE: Marathon discharges to,

is it Marathon Creek -- Robinson Creek? And

Exxon is to the Des Plaines River, Citgo is

to the Sanitary and Ship Canal, and Conoco to

the Mississippi River.

12:32:53

MS. LIU: Thank you.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Is that it?

Let's go off the record for a minute, Sharon.

0252

(WHEREUPON, discussion was had

off the record.)

THE HEARING OFFICER: Back on the

record now.

We're going to take a short lunch 12:36:45

break until 1:20. Citgo is going to take a

look at these exhibits to see if they need to

talk about it anymore, and we may have to

reconvene around September 4th or 5th.

But with that said, I'll see you 12:37:07

back at 1:20. Thanks.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was had.)

THE HEARING OFFICER: We are back on

the record. It'd approximately 1:22.

The Agency has rested. We are

13:23:08

moving back now to the Petitioner, Citgo, I

believe rebuttal. And Mr. Fort represented

he has one or two redirect questions.

MR. FORT: Yes. Thank, Your Honor.

The question we had -- we had

13:23:22

quite a few questions today about retention

time and things of that nature. And I'd like

to ask both Mr. Stein and Mr. Huff to talk

about what happens if you do certain things

0253

with a design for increased retention time,

some of the other issues of that comes up,

particularly with respect to cold temperature

conditions.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

13:23:47

6 BY MR. FORT:

Q. So, Mr. Stein, do you want to --

A. One thing is that, as you increase the

9 detention time, you have more surface area for

10 cooling. So you lose heat from the treatment plant, 13:23:57

11 so you actually get colder temperature. And if you

12 get too long a detention time and too cool a

13 temperature, you can have a -- lose your biological

14 nitrification.

So, you know, increasing in the 13:24:12

16 detention time can actually cause problems with

17 regard to temperature. Because we can lose

18 temperature, and, therefore, in about -- I think I

19 had said earlier 68 degrees after 20 degrees C,

20 seems to be the break point between having good

13:24:28

21 nitrification and starting to have problems.

And I think in the Citgo

23 refinery, in the table that I presented, I think we

24 show a low temperature of about 73 degrees F. So

0254

1 increasing detention time could decrease

2 temperature.

Q. And, Mr. Stein, when you're talking

4 about the 68 degrees being a key temperature, that

5 is -- is that based upon information from Illinois 13:24:57

6 or general information or...

A. Well, it's general information. But

8 also, I guess one of the things we did actually with

9 Illinois, is we actually did a two-year treatment

10 efficiency evaluation for the GE classics treatment 13:25:10

11 plant in Ottawa, Illinois, where the State of

12 Illinois actually wrote into the regulations.

After doing a two-year study, we

14 found that they had problems meeting the three

15 milligrams per liter temperatures of less than

13:25:27

16 68 degrees Farenheit. So they actually wrote into

17 their permit that temperatures less than 68 would be

18 covered in malfunction of upset, and, therefore, not

19 be considered a violation.

But the literature on biological 13:25:44

21 nitrification also shows 20 degrees C seems to be

22 the break point.

Q. Thank you.

Mr. Huff, anything you wanted to

0255

1 add?

A. I just would point out that the longer

3 retention time, you have those like with aerated

4 lagoons, it's kind of another alternative. And

5 there's a long history in Illinois where aerated

13:26:03

6 lagoons do not nitrify in the winters for the

7 reasons that Mr. Stein just alluded to.

MR. FORT: That's it. Thank you.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Mr. Fort?

Mr. Boltz?

13:26:18

MR. BOLTZ: Just one question.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Sure.

RECROSS EXAMINATION

14 BY MR. BOLTZ:

Q. So the issue relative to the colder 13:26:24

16 temperature, the decrease in temperature that could

17 occur through the longer detention times, that

18 issue, is that an issue that ExxonMobil and Marathon

19 Oil, as well as Conoco, would they be -- would they

20 be mindful of that issue as well, with respect to 13:26:40

21 detention times they implement?

A. I guess I don't know what into the

23 thinking of those refineries. I mean, it would

24 apply to their treatment plants, if it gets -- and I

0256

1 haven't seen aeration base in temperatures, but it

2 would -- the same technical kinetic considerations

3 apply to those systems, but...

Q. The same scientific sort of issues

5 that you address?

13:27:07

A. Correct.

MR. HUFF: I would just point out

that both Conoco, Phillips and Marathon are

closer to Southern Illinois, and there is a

fairly significant difference in those cold 13:27:15

temperatures than Northern Illinois.

Certainly ExxonMobil has the exact same

issue, yes.

Q. Okay.

MR. BOLTZ: Nothing further, sir.

13:27:23

THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr. Fort?

MR. FORT: No, sir.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Ms. Liu?

MS. LIU: No, thank you.

THE HEARING OFFICER: All right.

13:27:28

We're going to go off the record.

(WHEREUPON, discussion was had

off the record.)

THE HEARING OFFICER: Back on the

0257

record.

We've been talking about a number

of things, including the posthearing briefing

schedule. But first, I do want to say, at

least for the time being, that any -- I don't 13:36:07

find any credibility issues with the

witnesses that testified here today.

We have set a telephone status

conference in this matter for August 28th,

and that would be at 10:00, to discuss a

13:36:22

number of things. Because what we're going

to do today is continue this hearing on

record to September 5th, 2008, from 9:00 a.m.

to 11:00 a.m., if need be. Hopefully, by

August 28th we'll find out if that's

13:36:43

needed.

Also on August 28th, we hope to

address the Agency's Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, and

whether or not Mr. Boltz will submit those

into evidence and any objections that may

13:36:57

follow. Between now and August 28th, the

Agency is going to, hopefully, supply the

petitioner with any added documents that they

could --

0258

MR. BOLTZ: I appreciate that.

THE HEARING OFFICER: And you will

supply, as well?

MR. BOLTZ: Absolutely.

THE HEARING OFFICER: Okay.

13:37:21

So, what we did -- for the

posthearing briefing schedule, as it stands

now, if in fact we don't have to come back

here, we've had Citgo's opening brief due

September 22nd, the Agency's brief due

13:37:34

October 10th and then Citgo's reply, if

anything, October 24th.

And the mailbox rule will not

apply. And if you do file electronically, I

would ask that it be filed by 4:30, those due 13:37:50

dates.

Anything else?

All right. This matter is

continued on record until September 5th at

9:00 a.m.

13:38:01

However, it may not be needed.

And if it's not needed, I'll get a written

order out canceling it.

Thank you so much for all your

0259

professionalism.

MR. FORT: Thank you.

MR. BOLTZ: Thank you.

(WHICH WERE ALL THE MATTERS

HEARD IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED

MATTER THIS DATE.)

0260

1 STATE OF ILLINOIS)

) SS:

3 COUNTY OF COOK )

I, SHARON BERKERY, a Certified Shorthand

5 Reporter of the State of Illinois, do hereby certify

6 that I reported in shorthand the proceedings had at

7 the hearing aforesaid, and that the foregoing is a

8 true, complete and correct transcript of the

9 proceedings of said hearing as appears from my

10 stenographic notes so taken and transcribed under my

11 personal direction.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereunto set my

13 hand at Chicago, Illinois, this 1st day of

14 September, 2008.

Certified Shorthand Reporter

19 C.S.R. Certificate No. 84-4327.