CPY Document

NOTICE OF FILING
SATISFIED REQUIREMENTS OF 35 ILL. ADMIN. CODE §104.406
SATISFIED REQUIREMENTS OF 35 ILL. ADMIN. CODE §104.406
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED

ADmSTED STANDARD FOR

AMMONIA NITROGEN DISCHARGE LEVELS

APPLICABLE TO CITGO PETROLEUM

CORPORATION AND PDV MIDWEST

REFINING, L.L.C., PETITIONERS

)

) AS 08-08

) (Adjusted Standard - Water)

)

To:

John T. Therriault

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James

R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph St., Ste. 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Jason Boltz

IEPA

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

NOTICE OF FILING

Bradley P. Halloran

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James

R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

IEPA

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Connie L. Tonsor

IEPA 1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O.

Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Office

of the Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

69 W. Washington, 18

Floor

Chicago, IL 60602

Illinois Department

of Natural Resources

100 W. Randolph

Suite 4-300

Chicago, IL 60601

Please take notice that

on September 22, 2008, we filed electronically with the Office of

the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board the attached Post-Hearing Brief in Support of an

Adjusted Standard, a copy of which is served upon you.

CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, and.

PDV MIDWEST, LLC, Petitioners

By:

-'--\I-_~_d.:_~

ne of Its Attorneys

Jeffrey

C. Fort

Ariel J. Tesher

Sonnenschein Nath

Rosenthal LLP

7800 Sears Tower

233 S. Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606-6404

12482859

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2008

BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

IN THE

MATTER OF:

PROPOSED ADJUSTED STANDARD

FOR

AMMONIA NITROGEN DISCHARGE LEVELS

APPLICABLE TO CITGO PETROLEUM

CORPORATION AND PDV MIDWEST

REFINING,

L.L.c.,

PETITIONERS

)

) AS 08-08

) (Adjusted Standard - Water)

)

POST-HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF AN ADJUSTED STANDARD

CITGO Petroleum Corporation and PDV Midwest Refining, LLC petition the Illinois

Pollution Control Board ("Board") for an Adjusted Standard applicableto its Lemont Refinery

(hereafter, "Lemont Refinery"). This rule change would reduce the allowable levels

of ammonia

nitrogen in the wastewater discharges from a refinery located in Lemont, Will County, Illinois.

CITGO is the operator

of the Refinery and PDV Midwest Refining, LLC is the owner of the

Refinery. For the reasons stated below, Petitioner requests an Adjusted Standard from Section

304. 122(b)

of Subpart B of Part 304 of Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code. Petitioner's

existing site-specific regulation pertaining to ammonia nitrogen, 35 Ill. Admin. Code § 304.213,

will expire on December 31, 2008. This Petition for an Adjusted Standard ("Petition") is

brought pursuant to Section 28.1

of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/28.1, and Part 104 of Chapter 35 of the

Illinois Administrative Code,

35 Ill. Admin. Code § 104.400 et seq. In support of this Petition,

CITGO states as follows:

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Petitioner has proposed an absolute reduction in ammonia nitrogen discharges from the

level currently permitted under rule

35 Ill. Admin. Code § 304.213. The levels of ammonia

nitrogen proposed

by this Adjusted Standard would require a reduction in the daily limit of 59

12482859

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2008

percent and in the monthly limit of27 percent from those presently authorized under 304.213.

These levels would only apply if the Refinery were discharging more than 200 pounds of

ammonia on a given day or 100 pounds on a monthly average. The Refinery has taken

significant measures to reduce its effluent levels, including segregating the desalter water from

other process wastewaters, continuously removing solids from process water tanks, operational

checks on amine levels, and adding antifoam to the amine system. (See examination

of Brigitte

Postel, Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0119, lines 7-14). More improvements are underway,

planned and proposed. However, the evidence at the hearing makes it abundantly clear that the

Lemont Refinery cannot guarantee meeting the ammonia nitrogen levels required by 35 IlL

Admin. Code § 304. 122(b), i.e. 3 mg/L as a monthly average and 6 mg/L daily maximum.

WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS AT HEARING

At the hearing of August 20, 2008, Petitioner presented three witnesses whose primary

testimony had been pre-filed.

also submitted fifteen unique supporting exhibits, the final three

of which (Exhibits 13-15) were copies of the pre-filed testimony. Petitioner's first witness,

Brigitte Postel, is the Environmental Engineer and Water Coordinator at the Lemont Refinery.

She testified as to the extensive improvements made to reduce ammonia nitrogen effluents and

the Refinery's inability to guarantee perfectly consistent nitrification. Ms. Postel presented

background on the Lemont Refinery's operations and, as an exhibit to her prepared testimony,

she provided direct answers to questions put forward

by the Board in response to the original

Petition. She also clarified that the Lemont Refinery's zoning classification is "industriaL" For

the background details

of the Lemont Refinery, see Attachment E to this brief. (See testimony of

Brigitte Postel, Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0028, line 15 through p.0035 line 5; p.0194, lines 5-

7).

12482859

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2008

Petitioner's second witness, Jim Huff, is Vice President and part owner of Huff

Huff,

Inc., an environmental consulting firm founded in 1979.

He presented his analysis of the

environmental impact

of the Lemont Refinery's ammonia-nitrogen effluent. As exhibits to his

testimony, Mr.

Huff presented his reports dated both 2008 (Exhibit 2) and 1992 (Exhibit 3). He

also presented his resume as Exhibit 4. Mr.

Huff testified as to the environmental conditions in

the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, the Lemont Refinery's influent and effluent, and the

mixing zone. Exhibit 5 contains data used

by Mr. Huff to demonstrate the steady improvements

made at the Lemont Refinery.

He also explained the impact of the purge treatment unit on the

ammonia-nitrogen effluent. Mr.

Huff directly addressed the Agency's concerns, as expressed in

their Recommendation, noting that: concern for dissolved oxygen is misplaced, that the other

refineries are not better situated to meet the requirements of301.122(b), and that the Lemont

Refinery contributes less than 1%

of the overall ammonia loading even under low-flow

conditions. Mr.

Huff described the gross inefficiencies, in both monetary and greenhouse gas

terms, that would result from expanding the wastewater treatment facilities in an attempt to

reduce the effluent ammonia levels during the infrequent upset periods. Finally, Mr.

Huff

explained the US EPA methodology he used to derive the effluent limits proposed in the Petition.

Petitioner'sthird and final witness was Robert Stein,

of AWARE Environmental Inc.

(AEI). A description

of AEI and the curricula vitae of he and his colleague were attached as

Exhibits 6-8. Mr. Stein analyzed the Lemont Refinery'spossible technical alternatives that

might achieve 100% compliance with a 3/6 mg/L ammonia-nitrogen standard. His conclusions

were both that the Lemont Refinery is properly managing its wastewater treatment to control for

ammonia-nitrogen and that no alternative technology can guarantee 100% compliance with the

3/6 mg/L standard. Mr. Stein's complete report was attached as Exhibit

his oral testimony,

he elaborated that a refinery that currently achieves nitrification

may fail to do so when it adds

12482859

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2008

purge treatment unit discharge. He suggested that ExxonMobil, which has not yet added its

purge treatment unit discharge to its general wastewater treatment,

may fail to achieve

nitrification 100%

of the time. As regards the Lemont Refinery, Mr. Stein indicated that the

primary variable that controls nitrification is the food-to-organism ratio. Further,

he explained

that this ratio has been properly maintained and other changes were unlikely to yield significant

further improvements.

Petitioner filed additional exhibits reflecting corrected testimony for Mr. Stein (Exhibit

10), a provisional variance from 2005 (Exhibit 11) and the administrative record

of the 1998

rulemaking, R98-14 (Exhibit 12).

The Agency, in contrast, refused to pre-file any testimony and, ultimately, presented one

witness who stated that he did not contradict any

of the witnesses or testimony presented by

Petitioner. (See examination of Darin LeCrone, Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0238, lines 2-10

and p.0242, lines 8-13). At the date

of that hearing, the Agency brought three exhibits

purporting to reflect the effluent data for three Illinois refineries. The Agency reserved

submission

of those exhibits until weeks later, when it had a chance to re-evaluate its data and

ultimately submitted the same general data, repeated in different forms, as its exhibits 1-11. (See

Joint Stipulation, filed September

4,2008). See Section III of this brief for more on the

Agency's response.

THE PETITION MEETS STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND SHOULD BE GRANTED

In its original Petition, the Lemont Refinery included an appendix that set out the

requirements for an Adjusted Standard as set out in 35 Ill. Admin. Code §104.406 and the

portions

of the Petition that met these requirements. We have included a similar table as

Attachments A and B to this Post-Hearing Brief with references to both the Petition and, now,

the testimony presented

by the parties.

12482859

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2008

The record is uncontested that there is no refinery in Illinois which has the waste load

relating to ammonia that the Lemont Refinery is now treating. No other refinery has actually

implemented the compliance measures under the Clean Air Act to reduce nitrogen and sulfur

oxide emissions and is now discharging those waste streams to a water

of the state.. Therefore,

no other refinery is now both discharging the resulting increased levels

of nitrogen materials

from Clean Air Act compliance measures and consistently meet the stringent effluent standards

contained in 304.122(b). The Conoco facility does not meet the 3/6 standard; the Marathon

refinery does not discharge all

of its ammonia bearing waste stream through its wastewater

treatment facilities, and the Exxon Mobil refinery has not begun discharging this waste stream -

and the testimony at the hearing suggests that there is a risk that that refinery will also not

achieve the 304.122(b) levels on a consistent basis.

The limits proposed

by the Lemont Refinery will not be easy to attain. They are set

based on the 95% confidence interval- meaning that there is a real chance they could be

exceeded. This is a level based on USEPA guidance. This puts an incentive on the Lemont

Refinery to operate its wastewater system

as effectively as it can. Moreover, the Refinery has

proposed at the hearing, and is providing

as requested by the Board (see Measures to Assure

Reliability

of Nitrification Processes, below) , further measures it is willing to undertake to

further reduce its effluent - even though it has removed more ammonia from the Ship Canal in

2008 than, on average, it has discharged. (See examination

of Jim Huff, Hearing of Aug. 20,

2008, p.0075, lines 17-24). Petitioner has incorporated these Measures into its proposed adjusted

standard. The evidence is clear that the Refinery can and does provide nitrification for long

periods - months or even a few years at a time. But with the dynamic nature

of petroleum

refining, and the increasing demands for uses

of new petroleum supplies, upsets do occur in the

process areas, causing upsets in the nitrification process in the wastewater treatment process

12482859

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2008

area. Wastewater treatment for nitrification is thus a difficult task. (See examination of Robert

Stein, Hearing

of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0086, lines 4-5). CIGTO believes that expanded wastewater

treatment facilities will not eliminate these upsets to the nitrification process, and has and will

continue to focus its efforts to improve reliability on reducing these process upset impacts on the

wastewater treatment area.

MEASURES TO ASSURE RELIABILITY OF NITRIFICATION PROCESSES

The Lemont Refinery will provide an additional 2MM gallons of

wastewater storage capacity. This additional storage tank capacity shall be

included in a construction permit application within three months

of the

concluding ammonia adjusted standard process.

The Lemont Refinery will continue to participate with the Petroleum

Environmental Research forum on "Reducing Desalter Environmental Impacts",

and shall provide an annual progress update on the technologies researched,

potential for feasibility at the Refinery, and a time line for bench scale

application,

if appropriate.

CITGO and the Agency shall develop an appropriate malfunction/upset

definition condition for inclusion

in the NPDES permit. The upset condition shall

address mechanical malfunctions in the production process or in the wastewater

treatment plant ("WWTP"), and situations in which the organic loading to the

WWTP exceeds the aeration capabilities or a wastewater stream is inhibitory to

nitrification.

CITGO further proposes issues relating to upset conditions which interfere with nitrification

would be handled pursuant to such a condition.

ARGUMENT: THE LEMONT REFINERY IS ENTITLED TO AN ADJUSTED

STANDARD AS REQUESTED IN THE PETITION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS

IDENTIFIED HEREIN.

THE REFINERY HAS SHOWN SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENTS AND REDUCTIONS

IN AMMONIA NITROGEN DISCHARGES, A RESULT OF THE SUBSTANTIAL

INVESTMENTS MADE IN WASTEWATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENTS IN

TREATMENT CAPABILITIES FOR AMMONIA NITROGEN

The Refinery discharges to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal ("Canal") a tributary

the Illinois River. The Illinois IEPA describes the aquatic habitat of Petitioner'sportion of this

waterway as "poor to very poor," and it is designated as "non-support for fish consumption and

aquatic life." (See examination of Jim Huff, Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0055, lines 14-19,

12482859

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2008

citing Illinois EPA, Statement of Reason, R08-09, 2008). The Canal is similarly non-supporting

of human recreational activities, due to its geographic qualities and the resulting dangerous

waves caused by barge traffic. (See examination

of Jim Huff, Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0054,

line 6 through p.0055, line 13, citing CDM,

Chicago Area Waterway System Use Attainability

Analysis,

August 2007.) The same CDM report explained why the Canal has such a poor habitat,

explaining that the Canal has: silty substrates, poor substrate material, little instream cover,

channelization, and no sinuosity. (See examination

of Jim Huff, Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008,

p.0057, lines 11-24, citing CDM,

Chicago Area Waterway System Use Attainability Analysis,

August 2007.) Notably, the ammonia concentrations in the Canal are generally quite low, below

1 mg/L. Even more, the unionized ammonia concentrations have been consistently below 0.010

mg/L, below even the proposed change reflected in R08-09. (See examination

of Jim Huff,

Hearing

of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0058, lines 1-16.)

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

of27 percent. (See examination of Brigitte Postel, Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0038, lines 9-

20.) The un-ionized ammonia in the Canal currently reflects less than 10%

of the water quality

standard - a level that will be further reduced under the proposed reductions in the Petition. (See

examination

of Jim Huff, Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0061, lines 7-18.) The water quality

conditions in the receiving stream do not require further treatment

of the Refinery discharge to

meet existing water quality standards for ammonia or even for the revised ammonia nitrogen

standards as proposed

by the Agency in the UAA.

12482859

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2008

The discharge is quickly dispersed in the Canal and assimilated by the receiving stream.

The Canal at this point is an effluent dominated stream with about 70% due to municipal

effluent. (See examination

of Jim Huff, Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0056, lines 12-21, citing

Illinois EPA, Statement

of Reason, R08-09, 2008). That municipal effluent includes the

Stickney treatment plant, one

of the largest such plants in the world.

Id.

As noted in the 1992

Huff

Huff report, the Refinery'sdischarge results in a 10:1 dilution plume in an area 15 feet

long

by 8 feet wide. The effluent is dispersed to a 10: 1 dilution in approximately 7 seconds

which is considered "rapid" and "immediate" under Board regulations. 35 Ill. Admin. Code

Subtitle C, Chapter

I, Section 302.102. Effluent conditions and low flow conditions in the Ship

Canal have not changed materially, so this Zone

of Initial Dilution analysis remains valid today.

The overall mixing zone was determined to provide a dilution ratio

of 40:1 during this same

1992 study. Again, conditions are similar today, except that the 7-day 10-year low flow in the

Ship Canal has been reduced from 1,100 MGD to 850 MGD due to the loss

of discretionary

diversion

of Lake Michigan water. The result is a current mixing zone dilution ratio of 36.1:1 at

the design average flow for the Lemont Refinery. The most recent

Huff

Huff report (attached

to the original petition as Exhibit A and Exhibit 2 at the hearing) notes that the ammonia levels in

the Canal, at the edge

of the mixing zone, would be 0.805 mg/I. Since the Refinery usually is

able to nitrify, the typical levels in the Canal after mixing are significantly lower. Moreover, the

maximum unionized ammonia level recently collected in the Canal (downstream at Lockport)

was 0.079

mg/l- which includes the discharge of the Refinery.

Moreover, while the Agency Recommendation made various accusations about the

discharge

of ammonia nitrogen, the uncontested evidence at the hearing is that the Refinery can

meet the water quality standard for ammonia which the Agency has proposed in the

UAA

proceeding! With that evidence, the Agency cannot complain about the environmental effect of

12482859

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2008

the Refinery discharge. In particular, this adjusted standard would lower those existing levels of

discharge. (See Transcript, Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0014, lines 3-11). The Agency declined

to rebut

or challenge any of the evidence or testimony presented. (See examination of Darin

LeCrone, Hearing

of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0238, lines 2-10; p.0242, lines 8-13). In fact, although

Bob Mosher (from the IEPA water quality standards group) was present, he declined to testify.

(See Transcript, Hearing

of Aug. 20,2008, p.0002, line 20; p.0007, lines 19-21). Finally, the

Refinery's impact

on dissolved oxygen is so minimal that it is within the margin of error of the

sampling method. (See testimony

of Jim Huff, Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0189, lines 5-24).

II. THERE ARE

NO TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE AND ECONOMICALLY REASONABLE

MEASURES TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL RULE

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 site-specific rule. The

Board has previously found that the wastewater treatment system goes beyond Best Available

Technology ("BAT") requirements. 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

ofbest available technology

("BAT") economically achievable; and (b) the ammonia nitrogen discharge for the Refinery has

no discemable water quality impact

on the receiving stream.

No technology can assure that the Refinery will meet the ammonia-nitrogen limits of 3

mg/L/day monthly average and 6 mg/L/day maximum. As a result, as Robert Stein noted in his

pre-filed testimony, "upgrading the treatment system with additional treatment technologies for

ammonia removal is not justified at this time." (See examination

of Robert Stein, Hearing of

12482859

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2008

Aug. 20, 2008, p.0091, lines 19-22; p.0111, lines 14-21).

fact, when asked about

ExxonMobil'spotential for achieving compliance with the 3/6 mg/L standard, Mr. Stein's

prediction was, "Not with a hundred percent certainty, no." (See examination

of Robert Stein,

Hearing

of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0244, lines 12-17.) Mr. Stein noted that, in order to guarantee

performance with the 3/6 mg/L standard, "you need to

go through a full NPDS permit cycle,

which would be a minimum

of five years." (See examination of Robert Stein, Hearing of Aug.

20,2008, p.0137, lines 7-9.) Specifically, Mr. Stein noted that "there'sinherent variability in a

treatment system. Unless you've got good long-term demonstration, then there's always the ...

potential problem

of upsets." (See examination of Robert Stein, Hearing of Aug. 20,2008,

p.0137, lines 11-14.) Mr. Stein even noted,

byway of example, a paper mill project for which he

consulted that became subject to unforeseen upsets. "They had gone ten years without a

problem, and then, because

of high temperatures, had some sulfites. And developed sulphur-

based filaments and lost control

of the system, and lost -- very heavily solids. What happens is,

when you get the filamentous bulking, you cannot settle very well. And, therefore, the solids

will go out the effluent and you lose control

of your treatment system." (See examination of

Robert Stein, Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0133, lines 7-20.) Mr. Huff is in agreement, noting in

response to a question from the Board technical advisors,

"1 agree with Mr. Stein that before 1

say definitively,

would want five years ofperformance data. [Exxon] ha[s gone] approximately

two years without the wet gas scrubber going through that system. They have no data yet, other

than their laboratory pilot test, that says that they will not have any effect.

believe that there is

a considerable uncertainty as to the success

of that plant when the wet gas scrubber comes

online." (See examination

of Jim Huff, Hearing of Aug. 20,2008, p.0210, line 15 through

p.0211, line 1.)

12482859

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2008

Even assuming that the lowest cost upgrade identified in the 2008 AWARE Report were

justified, it would cost $3,220,000 per year or $205 per pound of ammonia removed. Moreover,

it would increase the

plant'scarbon dioxide emissions by 1,976,000 pounds per year. For every

additional pound

of ammonia that is oxidized 126 pounds of carbon dioxide will be emitted.

(See examination

of Jim Huff, Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008, p.oon, lines 7-24). As a comparison,

the Calumet Water Reclamation Plant removes ammonia at approximately $3.00 per pound.

Even the Water Reclamation Plant's five side-stream aeration systems remove ammonia about

$10 per pound. These costs are 68-times more efficient than the least expensive upgrade

proposed in the AWARE report. (See examination

of Jim Huff, Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008,

p.0073, lines 4-16, citing to Environmental Assessment of Ammonia Concentrations in the

Wastewater Discharge

of Union Oil Company, Chicago Refinery, by L.L. Huff and J.E. Huff,

1983, updated to 2008 dollars, and testimony

of J. E. Ruffin the Matter of Petition of Uno-Ven

to Amend Regulations Pertaining to Water Pollution, R93-8.).

The Lemont Refinery and its predecessors have expended significant resources in

improving the wastewater treatment system.

They have spent nearly $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. (See examination of Brigitte Postel, Hearing of Aug. 20,

2008, p.0039, line 20 through p.0040, line 4). The petitioner has: added a third aeration basin,

increasing the total aeration volume from 1.38 million gallons to 1.92 million gallons (which

directly improves the ability to nitrify); upgraded the aeration system

by replacing the existing

mechanical surface aerators with a fine-bubble diffused aeration system (also a direct

improvement to nitrification); added the second 100-ft. diameter secondary clarifier, doubling

the secondary clarifier capacity (also a direct improvement to nitrification); installed a new

chemical feed facility at the WWTP (an indirect improvement to nitrification); eliminated

12482859

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2008

discharge of process wastewater to the storm-water basin and provided tankage for

equalization/oil separation

of process wastewater (a direct improvement to nitrification);

converted the

WWTP control system to new DCS control (an indirect improvement to

nitrification); modified the sour water stripper charge tanks inlet line for better oil/water

separation

(a direct improvement to nitrification); performed a clean closure of the storm-water

basin (an indirect improvement to nitrification); utilized Na1co dried bacteria and conducted

nitrifier inhibition testing (a direct improvement to nitrification);

in 2000 installed induced gas

flotation system with polymer addition (also a direct improvement to nitrification); in 2003,

added additional strippers

in the sour water system for ammonia removal (also a direct

improvement to nitrification); also

in 2003, upgraded diffused aerators to improve oxygen

transfer (also a direct improvement to nitrification); in

2006, upgraded phosphoric acid feed

system and the aerators to improve oxygen transfer (also a direct improvement to nitrification);

in 2007, installed purge treatment unit to treat the discharge from the

FCC scrubber (needed to

protect the existing system from new wastewater source); and, also

in 2007, upgraded diffused

aerators to improve oxygen transfer (a direct improvement to nitrification). (See examination

Brigitte Postel, Hearing of Aug. 20,2008, p.0040, line 21 through p.0043, line 1.)

Thus, the Lemont Refinery has invested considerable resources to improve its ability to

provide nitrification and reduce its discharge.

And those efforts will continue with the further

compliance measures proposed herein.

III. THE AGENCY'S POSITION IS TO IGNORE WHAT IS REALISTIC AND TO PUT THE

RISK OF NON-COMPLIANCE ON THE LEMONT REFINERY - EVEN THOUGH THE

PROPOSED LEVELS ARE CONSISTENT WITH EPA GUIDANCE AND CREATE RISK OF

NON-COMPLIANCE

The Agency's response has been, at best, confused and confusing.

has changed

arguments repeatedly throughout the process.

In advance of the hearing, it refused to file pre-

12482859

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2008

filed testimony. The data it presented at the hearing was unprepared and inaccurate. And even

after the hearing, the information presented is inconsistent and unclear. Attachment D is a

summary

ofthe various factual assertions from the Agency Recommendation which were flatly

wrong and contradicted by the testimony and exhibits presented at the hearing. The Board

should disregard the Agency's Recommendation entirely and focus its review on the evidence

presented at the hearing.

The Agency has changed its argument regarding other Illinois refineries' ability to meet a

3/6 mg/L standard.

its filed Recommendation, it claimed, "the remaining three oil refineries

in Illinois are capable

of meeting the ammonia nitrogen limits required in 35 Ill. Adm. Code

304. 122(b)." Agency Recommendation at

~19.

At the hearing, the Agency admitted that there

were "no concentration limits that applied at Marathon at this time." (See testimony

of Darin

LeCrone, Hearing

of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0222, lines 19-20).

also admitted that ExxonMobil's

data reflects "nine and twenty-three, for average and maximum concentration limits." (See

testimony

of Darin LeCrone, Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0224, lines 22-23). While the Agency

has not provided data for Conoco-Phillips, it admitted at hearing that they are subject to "the

federal BAT mass limits" and that "they aren'tsubject to the three and six standard." (See

testimony

of Darin LeCrone, Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0225, lines 19-20). When pressed, the

Agency provided a spreadsheet for Conoco-Phillips that contained zero data.

See

Agency

Exhibit

9. As noted, above, the Board has already found the Lemont Refinery to have met those

same BAT requirements.

At the hearing, despite having had over six months

of advance notice of this petition, it

"wasn'table" to verify the certainty of its data. (See testimony of Darin LeCrone, Hearing of

Aug. 20, 2008, p.0228, lines 10-23). The Marathon data, in Agency's Exhibit 2, provides three

entries for March 21,2008. One

of those entries is actually above the 3 mg/L limit. (See

12482859

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2008

testimony of Darin LeCrone, Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0232, lines 2-16). When questioned

about the discrepancy, which further contradicts the Agency's own position in its

Recommendation, the Agency replied "I do not know."

!d.

Weeks later, after actually taking the

time to review its own data, the Agency'sbest explanation is that the various ammonia values

are for various outfalls.

See

email text in Agency Exhibit 7. Nonetheless, the data clearly shows

that, when one of these refineries had a primary outfall nearing the 3 mg/L level, it also had a

secondary storm-water discharge at over the 3 mg/L ammonia level.

The Agency has suggested that other refineries are able to guarantee compliance with a

3/6 mg/L regime but it has provided no reliable evidence to support that contention. The

Marathon plant does not send its scrubber effluent to its wastewater stream.

fact, as the

Agency admitted at the hearing, "they have been hauling some offsite out of state." (See

testimony

of Darin LeCrone, Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0233, lines 8-9). The Agency noted

that CITGO had put in extra treatment specifically for ammonia corning from their similar purge

treatment, and that the C1TGO outfall, unlike the Marathon outfall, accounts for the totality of its

effluent, rather than hiding some by disposing of it off-site. (See testimony of Darin LeCrone,

Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0234, lines 2-10). Despite the fact that southern Illinois has warmer

weather, and the avoidance

of scrubber effluents, Marathon still has effluent of similar qualities

to CITGO. The Agency has thus far proven itself unable to provide evidence

of the Conoco-

Phillips effluent to support their argument. When asked why there was no data, the Agency

witness replied,

don't know what's available, honestly.

didn't get any." (See testimony of

Darin LeCrone, Hearing of Aug. 20,2008, p.0235, lines 12-13). ExxonMobil has decided to

take a risk and has delayed in asking for regulatory relief. However, it has not even turned on its

FCC unit, and the ammonia-nitrogen consequences of adding that effluent to the wastewater

treatment are non-trivial. The consultants for C1TGO have indicated that without five years of

12482859

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2008

performance data with the wet gas scrubber, no such demonstration has been made by any

Illinois refinery. As such, they consider the risk too great to be taken on without such data.

Mr Stein and Mr Huff were familiar with the discharge information and the

characteristics

of these other Illinois - based refineries. Mr. Stein'sreport included a section

analyzing their performance and equipment. In point

of fact, his testimony and report provide a

more cogent and understandable review

of the issues, and the difficulties, in consistently

providing nitrification for refinery wastewater sufficient to consistently meet the limitations

contained in 304.122(b).

Ultimately, the Agency admitted that

it did not contradict any of the evidence or

testimony presented by CITGO. (See testimony of Darin LeCrone, Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008,

p.0238, lines 2-10). In fact,

when pressed on Mr. Huffs testimony that Exxon's wet gas

scrubber poses a risk that they would not meet the 3/6 mg/L standard, the Agency witness stated,

"I don't disagree with [Mr. Huffs testimony.]" (See testimony of Darin LeCrone, Hearing of

Aug. 20, 2008, p.0242, lines 8-13).

As noted in the above Measures to Assure Reliability

of Nitrification Processes, the

Lemont Refinery is prepared to take steps to ensure nearly constant nitrification.

plans to 1)

maintain an additional2MM gallons of wastewater storage capacity; 2) participate with the

Petroleum Environmental Research forum

on "Reducing Desalter Environmental Impacts,"

including an annual progress report to the Board regarding the technologies researched, potential

for feasibility at the Refinery, and a time line for bench scale application; and 3) work with the

Agency to develop a malfunction/upset definition for inclusion in the next NPDES permit to

address disruptions in nitrification.

This information also demonstrates that the Refinery is unique. Although the wastewater

treatment system does provide nitrification, it cannot meet the stringent requirements

12482859

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2008

304. 122(b) on a consistent basis, all of the time. Though the Agency asserted that other

refineries could achieve these levels, the record does not support that assertion. Mr. Stein

analyzed the design characteristics

of each of the refineries in Illinois and did not believe anyone

of them were employing measures which would guarantee consistent compliance with the

general limitation.! Neither the experts retained

by the Lemont Refinery, nor the Agency, could

predict the further control measures that would guarantee attainment

of the 3 mg/L monthly

average and 6 mg/L daily maximum limitations

in 304. 122(b). The steps being pursued by the

Refinery are, without question, the appropriate measures to pursue.

IV. THE LEMONT REFINERY HAS DEMONSTRATED IT IS ENTITLED

TO AN

ADJUSTED STANDARD ON THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED

Petitioner has addressed every element

of the requirements for an Adjusted Standard as

set out in 35 Ill. Admin. Code §104.406.

has also met its burden ofproof as set out in

§104.426 (referencing 415 ILCS 5127(a).) Attachments A and B to this

brief contains element-

by-element indices to the portions

of the Petition and the hearing testimony that contain the

applicable information satisfying §104.406 and §104.426 (referencing 415 ILCS 5127(a).)

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Board grant this adjusted standard, revised in

Attachment C to this brief.

CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, and

PDV MIDWEST REFINING,

L.L.c.,

Petitioners

By:

-----'--'fHj'->f-P"'f---.>.L--f----!!-....:.-L---

Jeffrey C. Fort

Ariel

J. Tesher

Sonnenschein Nath

Rosenthal LLP

! Indeed, the prior site-specific rule changes are further evidence

of the "uniqueness" of the

Lemont Refinery

12482859

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2008

7800 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago,

60606-6404

\2482859

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2008

ATTACHMENT

SATISFIED REQUIREMENTS OF 35 ILL. ADMIN. CODE §104.406

The table below sets out those paragraphs of the original petition and those portions of

the testimony that correspond to the requirements for an Adjusted Standard as set out in 35 Ill.

Admin. Code §104.406:

a) A statement describing the standard from which an

Preamble paragraph and

of the Petition. and

adjusted standard is sought. This must include the

testimony

of Brigitte Postel (Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008,

Illinois Administrative Code citation to the regulation

p.0036, lines 6-17).

general applicability imposing the standard

as well as

the effective date

of that regulation;

b) A statement that indicates whether the regulation

~~25,

28-30, and 32 ofthe Petition and testimony of

general applicability was promulgated to implement, in

Brigitte Postel (Hearing

of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0035, line 7

whole or in part, the requirements

of the CWA

Safe

through p.0036, line 17).

Drinking Water Act

((f)

et seq.), Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (42 USC 9601 et seq.), CAA (42 USC 7401 et seq.),

or the State programs concerning RCRA, UIC, or

NPDES [415 ILCS 5/28.1];

c) The level ofjustification as well as other information

~~9,

17-30,32, and 52 of the Petition and testimony of

or requirements necessary for an adjusted standard as

Brigitte Postel (Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008).

specified by the regulation

of general applicability or a

statement that the regulation

of general applicability

does not specify a level

ofjustification or other

requirements [415 ILCS 5/28.1] (See Section 104.426);

d) A description

of the nature of the petitioner's activity

~~7-10,

13-16, 18-24, and 33-45 of the Petition;

that is the subject

of the proposed adjusted standard. The

testimony

of Brigitte Postel (Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008,

description must include the location of, and area

p.0031, line

14 through p.0034, line 16); Additional

affected by, the petitioner's activity. This description

Information Requested by the Hearing Officer

must also include the number

of persons employed by

(Petitioner's Exhibit 1 to the testimony); testimony

the petitioner's facility at issue, age of that facility,

Jim

Huff (Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0050, line 17

relevant pollution control equipment already in use, and

through p.0054, line 5); 2008 Huff Report (Petitioner's

the qualitative and quantitative description

of the nature

Exhibit 2 to the testimony); 1992 Huff Report

of emissions, discharges or releases currently generated

(Petitioner's Exhibit 3 to the testimony); ammonia levels

by the petitioner's activity;

in the Canal, the effluent, and net discharge (Petitioner's

Exhibit 5 to the testimony).

e) A description

of the efforts that would be necessary if

~~45-50

of the Petition; testimony of Brigitte Postel

the petitioner was to comply with the regulation

(Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0043, lines 4-24);

general applicability. All compliance alternatives, with

testimony

of Robert Stein (Hearing of Aug. 20, 2008,

the corresponding costs for each alternative, must be

p.Ol08, line 22 through p.Oll1, line 21; p.0159, line 3

discussed. The discussion

of costs must include the

through p.0160, line 6); AWARE report, (Petitioner's

overall capital costs as well as the annualized capital and

Exhibit 9 to the testimony); testimony

of Jim Huff

operating costs;

(Hearing

of Aug. 20, 2008, p.0071, line 21 through

p.0073, line 16; p.128, line

17 throughp.0129, line 16).