ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

7,

1974

MOBIL OIL CORPORATION

PETITIONER

v.

)

PCB 73—562

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESPONDENT

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

Mr.

Marder)

This case comes to the Board on petition of Mobil Oil Corporation

filed December 28, 1973,

for a variance

from Rule 205

(b)

(2)

of the

Board’s Air Pollution Regulations

(Chapter

2)

,

for 580 gasoline stor-

age tanks, located at 223 locations,

all of which have a greater than

250 gallon capacity.

The Agency recommendation, filed February ~3, 1974, recommends the

variance be denied.

No hearing was held.

This variance is requested by Mobil for gasoline tanks located at

automobile service stations it owns throughout the state.

Mobil owns

these stations, but they are leased and operated by independent busin-

essmen.

The tanks in question fall under Rule 205

(b)

(2)

,

which re-

quires permanent submerged loading pipes on its tanks.

At the present

time, tt~setanks

are filled by use of the splash loading method.

Petitioner alleges it placed orders for loading tubes to bring

the

tanks

into compliance with the rule from Weil Service Product Corpora-

tion,

Chicago, Illinois,

a distributor for A.

Y. McDonald Corporation,

a manufacturer of the tubes needed.

However, no date for the placement

of the order was given.

Mobil has been told that the tubes will be delivered no later than

90 days after the order.

We do not know when the order was placed, but

are told it would be placed no later than January

1,

1974, the date

compliance

is required.

After delivery, Mobil alleges the work on all

the tanks will be completed in

90

days.

Mobil requests a six—months

variance from the rule.

Mobil alleges that should the variance not be granted, Mobil would

not deliver gas to the tanks which are not in compliance.

Mobil fur—

11 —499

---

ther alleges great hardship to their lessees

who operate the property,

an

to the public in general who would not be able to receive gasoline from

their closed stations.

Petitioner does not allege any data as to the environmental impact tha~.

these

continued

emissions will have.

The

Agency

has

estimated

that

the

emissions from the tanks will total 480 tons per year, while with sub-

merged pipe loading, the total will be reduced to

280

tons per

year.

The

Agency

feels, that Mobil~scompliance

plan

will bring its tanks in-

to compliance and that the

time

schedule

for

it

is

reasonable.

Rule 205

(b)

(2) became law onApril i3~1972.

The Board finds it in-

credible that Mobil could not comply with the regulation within 19

1/2

months, when the proposed

compliance

schedule

now

is

for

only six months.

Petitioner has given no

reason

for

its

delay

in

its

petition.

The Agency

recommendation states that the

reason

Mobil

expressed

to

it

for the delay

is that Mobil considered this project

a part of their

program for

sub-

merged pipe loading

of

tank trucks,

Since this rule change did not come

about

until

December of

1973,

Mobil

did

not

proceed

with installing the

pipes

at

service stations.

The

Board

does

not

~understand the connection

cetween tnese two projects

:~

is

tiuC

trat

£n

lexaco,

Inc

,

v

Environ—

menta.

Protection

Agency

FOB

73~.262

the

Board

allowed

two projects

to

cc

treated

as

one,

extenci

~g

~e

~c’~

~

da~r

out

aese

projects

qere

for

the

same

operational

unit,

and

Involved

significant

engineering

and

work

related

to

both

projects.

The

Board

fails

to

see the logic here.

The

submerged

pipe

loading

of

trucks

yes

a

change

from

the

rule,

which

made

compliance

easier

for

the

company.

No

matter

what

the

outcome

would

cc

for

the

regulation

conc~rung

submernea

uio~ioading of

trucks,

there

was

never

a

proposal

to

change

Rule

205

~b)

(2)

for

fixed

storage

tanks.

Petitioner

does

not

have

an

unreasonacee

and

.ar.;bitrary

hardship.

The

hardship

is

se1f~imposed.

Denial

of

a

~jar~~Lanc~

not

an

order

requir~

ing

Petitioner

to

halt

delivery

to

these

tanks.

A

variance

is

merely

a

shield

from

enforcement

(48

insuiations~

Inc.,

v.

Environmental

Protect-

~ncy,P~B7~~8,

BlOc

Pont

te

~cmcr~

-nd

Company v__~i~ron~

~

lv

this

decision the Board is

not ordering Mobil

to

cease delivery of gasoline to its stations.

The

Board notes that an action

of

this type

is

separate and distinct from an

enforcement action.

The

sole

determination

in

this

proceeding is that

Rule

205

(b)

(2)

does

not

pose

an

arbitrary

and

unreasonable hardship

on

Petitioner.

The

Board

realizes the effects on the public and to Petition

er~soperators,

if Mobil were forced

to

cease delivery of gas

to

the

sta~

tions.

Mobil

is in no

way restrained

by

Board

Order

from

delivery

of

gasoline to these stations,

Petitioner is merely deprived of the protect

ion from enforcement which is afforded by the grant of

a variance.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law

of the Board.

IT

IS

THE

ORDER

of

the

PcIlLuti.on

Control

Bc arM~

that

Petitioner

s

xe~

---

quest for a variance from Rule 205

(b)

(2)

Mr. Henss and Mr.

Seaman dissent.

I, Chri~tanL. Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by the Boardon the

7th

day of

March

,

1974,

by~ vote

of

3

to