ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 29,
1975
AMOCO OIL COMPANY,
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 75—104
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
AMOCO OIL COMPANY,
Petitioner,
VS.
)
PCB 75—105
(Consolidated)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Henss)
Amoco Oil Company operates a refinery in Wood River,
Madison County,
Illinois which
is capable of processing
up
to 110,000 barrels of crude petroleum per day.
Operations
at this refinery include:
atmospheric fractionation, vacuum
fractionation,
fluid catalytic cracking, catalytic reforming,
butene polymerization, sulfuric acid alkylation, distillate
oil and gasoline treating, gasoline blending, distillate fuel
blending, residual fuel blending, asphalt manufacture and the
manufacture of additives for gasoline, distillates, motor oils
and diesel lubricating oils.
The Wood River refinery is Amoco’s third largest refinery
and one of ten in the Amoco system.
Products from this
re-
finery include:
non—saleable fuel gasses for consumption by
Amoco, LPG,
chemical grade propylene concentrate,
special
naphthas, motor gasolines,
jet fuels, distillate fuels, diesel
fuels, residual fuels, road oils and paving asphalts, industrial
asphalts, polybutenes,
cable oils and various fuel and lubricant
additives.
17
—
203
—2—
In PCB 75-104 Amoco seeks a one-year variance from Rule
204(d)
of the Air Pollution Control Regulations for continued
operation of fuel combustion equipment pending completion of
its compliance program.
Rule 204(d)
limits
the emission of
sulfur dioxide from the burning of combined fuels.
Affected
equipment in this
case includes 6 steam boilers,
11 process
furnaces,
2 fume destructors and
3 safety flares.
In PCB 75—
105 Amoco seeks va~riancefrom Rule 203(d) (1) from May 30, 1975
through November 30,
1975 to allow operation of
a fluid cata-
lytic cracking unit pending installation of particulate emission
control equipment.
Rule 203(d) (1) provides particulate emission
rates for catalyst regenerators of fluidized catalytic converters.
These Petitions for Variance were consolidated by Board Order.
PCB 75-104
Sulfur dioxide emissions from Petitioner’s refinery averaged
3,800 lbs./hr.
in 1973 and 3,260 lbs./hr. in 1974.
Petitioner
does not supply information on the types and combinations of fuels
burned, the actual heat input from these fuels or the applicable
sulfur dioxide emission standard for the fuels involved.
The
Agency states that ~etitioner’s
1974 SO2 emissions are e9uivalent
to 1.99 lbs. per 10
Btu in contrast to the 1
lb. per l0~Btu
limit imposed by Rule
204(d) based upon the type of
fuels utilized
at the refinery.
Petitioner states that its SO2 emission will be
about 1500 lbs./hr. when compliance is achieved, depending on the
level of operations and consequent heat input
(Petitioner Exhibit
F).
On April
16, 1975 the U.
S. Supreme Court handed down its
Opinion in Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
et al vs. N&tural ~esources Defense Council, Inc.,
et al
(No.
73-1742).
In brief, the U.
S.
Supreme Court ruled that the Clean
Air Act authorizes states to grant variances from implementation
plan requirements if such variances do not interfere with the
attainment or maintenance of national ambient air quality standards.
Illinois
is required to attain the ambient air standards by
July 31, 1975 but the Illinois Implementation Plan provides for
the grant of variances
in accordance with the provisions of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
Therefore,
this Board can
grant individual variances beyond July 31, 1975 if the variances
do not interfere with the attainment and subsequent maintenance
of national ambient air quality standards.
(See:
Opinion and
Order of the Board in Texaco,
Inc. vs. EPA, PCB 75-59, May
8,
1975)
The record in this case contains SO2 ambient air quality data
obtained from the Agency’s Wood River Station 03 for the period
1969 through 1973 and Amoco’s Mobile Van for 1972 through 1974.
These data were tabulated by Petitioner as follows
(Petitioner Exhibit
F):
17
—
204
—3—
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
IEPA, WR Station
03
Annual Arith. Mean, ppm
0.040
0.017
0.018
0.028
0.027
NA
Mas.
24-Hr. Avg., ppm
-
-
-
0.173
NA
Amoco Mobile Van
Annual Arith. Mean, ppm
—
0.021
0-.014
0 3~T3
Max.
24—Hr. Avg., ppm
—
0.16
0.13
~
No. Days Above 0.14 ppm
-
1
0
These data indicate that the primary ambient SO7 standars
(an
annual arithmetic mean not to exceed 0.03 ppm and a 24—hour aerage
of 0.14 ppm not to be exceeded more than once
a year) were met in
1972 and 1973.
Data from the Mobile Van indicates that both
standards were exceeded in 1974.
Noting that the 24—hour standard was exceeded on 13 occasions
in 1974, Petitioner states that the wind never blew from Amoco
sources to the monitor on six of the dates.
On two other datc~,
no significant concentrations of SO2 were recorded during periods
when the wind carried emissions from Amoco sources toward the
monitor, according to Petitioner.
On the remaining five dates, Petitioner states that the wind
passed through the refinery to the monitor, although not necessarily
directly from an Amoco source to the monitor.
While admitting that
Amoco sources made some contribution
to the ambient concentrations,
Amoco believes that it “can be reasoned” that these
“excursions”
were not caused by fuel combustion in the refinery.
Petitioner
further reasons that,
since 1972 and 1974 operations constituted
about 91
of the peak 1973 operations, the refinery’s SO7 emission
“could not have been the cause of poorer ambient air quality in
1974”.
Petitioner states that the national ambient air standard for
SO? “has been achieved in the Wood River area with uncontrolled
emissions
of sulfur dioxide from fuel combustion
in Amoco’s
7
River refinery”.
On this basis, Amoco submits that fuel combustion
operations at its Wood River refinery, prior to compliance with
Rule 204(d),
“will not have an adverse effect on the health and
well-being of the community”.
The Board is unable to reach the same conclusions as
Petitioner especially in view of Petitioner’s own monitoring
results.
Amoco data showing an annual averageof 0,039 ppm and
a maximum 24~-houraverage of
0.54 ppm and 13 days above 0.14
pm
do not constitute proof that the primary standard has been met
in Wood River.
On the contrary the data clearly show that the
standards are not being met.
Agency monitoring data for the
Wood River area of 1974
is not a part of this record.
17—205
The Agency Recommendation does not discuss the ambient
air quality data except to state, without detail, that com-
plaints had been received concerning emissions from the re-
finery.
The Agency does note however, that the U.
S. EPA
issued
a Notice of Violation pursuant to Section 113(a) (1)
of the Clean Air Act to Amoco on January
29, 1975 concerning
the SO2 emissions from Amoco’s boilers.
Amoco has submitted
its schedule for achieving compliance to the U,
S.
EPA.
No
order has been issued by the U.
S. EPA in this matter.
The record is simply not sufficient, under the guidelines
of the recent U.
S.
Supreme Court decision, for the allowance
of this variance concerning SO2 emissions.
Data from Petitioner’s
own monitors indicate that the Wood River area has not yet
attained either of the primary SO2 standards.
We are unable to
conclude that Amoco’s emissions will not interfere with attain-
ment or maintenance of national ambient air quality standards.
Economic data submitted by Petitioner indicates that Amoco’s
Wood River refinery constitutes about 10
of the total Illinois
refinery capacity.
Petitioner states that the shutting down of
its refinery would increase refinery product importation into
the midwest by about 10,
cause Petitioner
to lose
the only
Amoco location where additives from motor oils and diesel luhes
are produced,
and cause
a loss of jobs and income for 225 re-
finery employees.
Petitioner
is advised, however, that the
denial of variance is not an order to shut down operations, but
is simply our determination that the record does not justify a
shield from prosecution.
Amoco plans to meet the SO2 standard of Rule 204(d) by
constructing fuel oil desulfurization equipment and by using the
expanded desulfurizing facilities of the Anlin Company for
treating refinery fuel gas.
The liquid fuel desulfurization
unit is scheduled to be completed in September 1975.
Anlin
projects that
it will start up its expanded desulfurization
facilities during September 1976.
The Agency believes that
Petitioner’s program will reduce SO2 to the level allowed by
Rule 204(d)
and that the time schedule for achieving compliance
submitted by Amoco
is reasonable.
The record in PCB 75—104
is not adequate for the allowance
of
a variance from Rule
204(d) and the Petition will be denied
without prejudice.
If Amoco decides to submit a new petition
for variances from Rule 204(d)
such petition must more adequately
address the air quality issue.
17
—
206
—5—
PCB 75—105
In this case Amoco seeks
a varian,ce from Rule 203(d) (1;
of the Air Pollution Control Regulations from May 30,
1975
to November 30,
1975 pending installation of an electrostati
precipitator to control particulate emissior~from a catalytic
cracking unit.
Amoco originally scheduled completion of the electro-
static precipitator project by May 1,
1975
so that the cracking
unit would be in compliance by May 20,
1975.
Mechanical con-
struction of the precipitator is reported to be essentially
complete and electrical construction is in progress.
Late
delivery of the waste heat recovery unit and necessary duct
work has caused Amoco to revise its Project Completion Schedule.
The Schedule now shows completion of the precipitator by
August 1,
1975, start-up by August 15,
1975 and compliance
achieved by August 31,
1975.
Amoco submits that its failure
to achieve compliance rests solely with the equipment delivery
delays over which it had no control.
Fine catalyst particles fluidized in the catalyst re-
generator tend to exit the regenerator with the effluent flue
gas.
Dual internal cyclones with a calculated over—all efficiency
of 99.99+
recover catalyst from the flue gas.
Using a material
balance method,
it
is calculated that particulate emissions
average
92
lbs. per hour.
Based on a catalytic circulation
rate of 1200 to 1500 tons per hour,
Rule 203(d) (1)
limits
Amoco to emissions from the catalytic regenerator of
80
to 83
lbs./hr.
When completed,
the 94
efficient precipitator should
reduce these particulate emissions to less than 10
lbs. per hour.
Petitioner has submitted suspended particulate data taken
from the Agency’s 1973 Illinois Air Sampling Network Report as
follows:
Alton-Wood River Trends
Annual Geometric Mean
—
ug/M3
Year
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Sampling Station
Alton 01
100
93
106
86
80
88
69
Wood River 01
111
83
134
116
102
—
—
“
03
—
—
158
115
101
94
79
Sewer Plant
—
106
—
—
—
—
—
17
—
207
—6—
1973 Suspended Particulate
ug/M3
Number
Maximum
Annual
of
24 Hour
Geometric
Sampling Station
Samples
Average
Mean
Alton 01
46
146
69
Wood River
03
57
153
79
National Primary
Standard
(260)
(75)
The above data indicate
that suspended particulates in the
Wood River area have been on the decline since 1967.
The 1973
data show that the Wood River area was only slightly above the
annual prim~rystandard of
75 ug/M3.
The maximum 24-hour standard
of 260 ug/M3 was not exceeded in the Wood River area during 1973.
The continuation of the downward trend would have brought the area
within the annual primary standard by this date.
As Petitioner notes, the declining ambient concentrations of
particulate matter have occurred despite the fact that emissions
from the cracking unit have remained relatively unchanged during
the same period of time.
Emissions now are only slightly above
both the allowable rate under Rule
203(d) (b) and the primary
standard.
On the record presented,
the Board finds that Petitioner
has
met the burden of proof required to obtain
a variance from
Rule
203(d) (1).
Petitioner’s good faith efforts
to achieve
compliance has been delayed through no fault
of
its own,
~ata indicate
that
Petitioner’s particulate emissions
do
not
pose
a
threat
to the attainment and maintenance
of
the
primary
standard for particulate matter.
Although Amoco believes that compliance with the emission
standard can be achieved by August 31,
1975, variance is sought
until November
30, 1975 to “cover possible further delivery delays
that cannot be foreseen”.
The Agency recommends the grant of var—
lance
until November 30, 1975 or such earlier date as
the
electric precipitator project is completed.
The Board certainly
recognizes Petitioner’s delivery problems, but a cushion of
3
months in meeting the schedule is excessive.
We will allow one
extra month for delivery delays.
Variance from Rule
203(d) (1)
will be allowed until September 30, 1975 or such earlier date
as compliance is achieved.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of
fact and conclusions
of law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
—7—
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
The variance petition of
Amoco
Oil Company from
Rule 204(d)
of the Air Pollution Control Regulations is
denied without prejudice.
2.
Amoco Oil Company
is granted variance from Rule
203(d) (1)
of the Air Pollution Control Regulations until
September 30, 1975 for the purpose of completing in-
stallation of an electrostatic precipitator on a catalytic
cracking unit at Amoco’s Wood River refinery.
This
variance is subject to the following conditions:
A.
Petitioner shall apply for and obtain all
necessary permits for installation of the
electrostatic precipitator.
B.
Petitioner shall submit progress reports to
the Environmental Protection Agency on June 30,
1975,
July
31, 1975 and August 31,
1975.
Said progress reports shall provide details
of Amoco’s progress towards completion of the
electrostatic precipitator project.
Mr. Dumelle concurs in PCB 75—104 a~iddissents in PCB 75—105.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were a~opted
on the ~~~day
of ~
.,
1975 by a vote of
~—O
in PCB75—l04 and,1~J
ii~ ~75—l05.
Christan L. Moff
ler
Illinois Pollutio
ntrol Board
17 —209