ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 20, 1973

TEXACO, INC.

PETITIONER

v.

)

PCB 73—262

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESPONDENT

MR. CHARLES IRVIN, ATTORNEY, in behalf of TEXACO, INC.

MR. KENNETH 

GUMBINER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, in behalf of

the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. 

Marder)

This cause comes to the Board on Texaco, Inc.~suetition for

a variance filed June 25, 1973, from Rule 205 (g) of the Air Poll-

ution Regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency’s recom-

mendation filed August 29, 1973, recommended a denial of the vari-

ance, and in the alternative, if a variance is granted by the Board,

certain conditions be attached to the granting of the variance as

discussed below.

A hearing was held on November 14, 1973. No

mem-

bers of the public were present. Texaco in a letter dated July 11,

1973, waived the 90-day requirement of Section 38 of the Environ-

mental Protection Act.

Texaco operates a refinery adjacent to the city of Lockport,

Will County, Illinois. This plant employs 800 people (R. 11) and

has been located at the present site since 1911 (R. 14) 

The plant’s

principal products are: gasoline, middle distillates, aviation fuel,

and heavy fuel oil (R. 14). The refined products of this plant are

sold in Illinois (R. 16) 

13—15 of the plant’s production is avi-

ation jet fuel (R. 24).

The operation in the plant that concerns us in this Petition

for variance is an agitator treating unit. This unit is used to

remove mercaptans from the middle distillate aviation fuel to make

the fuel usable under standards set forth by the American Society of

Testing Materials (R, 35 Pet, 2)

10—- 415

—2--

Untreated middle distillate kerosene is brought to the unit

and charged to one of the two agitator treating vessels. A chemical

doctor solution is then added to the middle distillate. These two

solutions are then physically mixed using both a mechanical mixer

in the side of the agitator and air mixing at the bottom of the tank.

Then the doctor solution is withdrawn from the tank for storage, un-

til enough is present to transfer and have the doctoring solution 

re-

generated. The treated kerosene is transferred to bleaching tanks

where steam is introduced in order to remove all traces of the chem-

ical in the kerosene (R. 33-36).

Rule 205 (g) prohibits the discharge of organic materials into

the atmosphere from petrochemical processes in excess of 100 ppm.

equivalent methane.

Texaco alleges and the Agency concurs that the emissions from

the activating treatment unit are as follows:

Hydrocarbon Emissions (Methane Equivalent)

Tank    

Service        

Max. PPM    

Max. lb/hr

3741)    

Treating       

33,390       

27.1

11514)

2140)

Doctor

2,330

5.8

2164)

Reactivation

11516)                

3,270        

5.8

2114)

Bleaching

90,000

2120)

2123)

11490)

Texaco proposes to install equipment to bring this operation

into compliance. This will include the adding of mixers on agitator

tanks 3741 and 11514 to eliminate the need for air mixing. Vapors

will be collected from reactivator tanks, bleacher tanks, and doctor

reactivator using blowers and directed to a thermal incinerator or

oxidizer (R. 36—42, Pet. P. 5).

The Agency believes that this equipment unit will bring this

unit into compliance with Rule 205 (g) (Agency recommendation P. 3).

Texaco has a proposed time schedule for the completion of this

project as follows:

A)  2-1-74  

Application to Environmental Pro-

tection Agency for permit

B)  4-1-74  

Construction contract awarded

C)  5-1-74  

Construction begins

D) 10-1-74  

Construction completed

E) 11-1-74  

Commence operation

10— 416

—3—

(Pet. Exhibit 1, Pet. P. 5)

Texaco estimates this project will cost $281,000.

The Agency’s major objection to this variance is the time sched-

ule. First, the Agency feels that by considering the control of this

unit as one project, Texaco is asking for an unwarranted delay in re-

ducing emissions 25—30 (Agency closing argument P. 1—2). Secondly,

the Agency brought out in testimony that the project could have been

completed on time, had not there been so much of a gap in Texaco’s

scheduling (Agency closing argument, p. 4)

Section 35 of the Environmental Protection Act allows the Board

to grant a variance from its regulations if enforcement of the regu-

lation would pose an unreasonable or arbitrary hardship (Chapter 111

1/2 Ill. Revised Statutes Section 1035 A).  Mere economic hardship

in the face of alternatives doesn’t justify variance relief (Swords

v. Environmental Protection Agency PCB 70-6). Hardship to persons

other than the Petitioner, such as employees or customers, may be

the basis for granting a variance (Merle K. Buerkett v. Environmental

Protection Agency PCB 71-30 3)

We feel that Petitioner has shown a hardship that will sustain

the granting of a variance, Testimony shows that .13—15 of the re-

finery’s capacity is jet fuel that is processed through the unit in

question. Should a variance not be granted, the alleged loss of this

aviation fuel (16,000 bbls. per day, Pet. P. 4) would cause a severe

strain on the already tight fuel situation which the airlines are al-

ready experiencing. The alleged loss of fuel would result in a fur-

ther reduction of flights which affects the employment of persons far

beyond those employed by Texaco.

Unfortunately the record gives no indication as to effect Petition-

er’s emissions have on the environment. Texaco’s variance petition

states that: “The granting of this variance will have no adverse ef-

fects on the public as these hydrocarbon emissions do not contribute

significantly to photochemical smog formation in this area.” The

Board has no way of attesting to the validity of this statement. The

Agency in its recommendation makes no mention of adverse environmen-

tal effects. Because of the above, and because this source of emiss-

ions will be brought into compliance within one year, the Board reluct-

antly accepts Petitioner1s environmental impact statements. It is

further worth noting that during Agency interviewing of citizens in

the area, no citizens objected to the grant of the variance. Although

some citizens indicated they were bothered by odors from Petitioner’s

facilities, there is no way of determining whether the odors are attri-

butable to the subject unit operations.

The Board is as troubled as the Agency with the speed with which

this project has been carried out. Oliver Goodlander, the plant’s

supervisor for air—water conservation, testified that he monitors poll—

10—417

—4—

ution control regulations and advises management on compliance (R. 80)

When the present regulations for air pollution came out in April of

1972, a survey of the plant was made to determine compliance or lack

of compliance (R. 85). The testimony of Mr. Warren Yaap, associate

plant manager for the past 6 1/2 years, explained the project effort

as portrayed in Petitioner’s Exhibit #1. Progress in bringing the

plant into compliance went along smoothly until January of this year.

At that time staff at the Lockport refinery had agreed to a proposed

contract with the local office of Brown and Root, a Houston—based en-

gineering firm, to develop the engineering needed to bring the plant

into compliance. The home office of Brown and Root objected to the

contract, and negotiations between Lockport, Houston, and Texaco head-

quarters 

in Houston took 4 1/2 months, during which time nothing was

done on this project (R. 68). The Board feels that this delay was un-

warranted and should have been mitigated by Texaco, in either pressing

negotiations at a faster pace or seeking a new engineering firm. Fin-

ally this problem was settled, and the engineering has since proceed-

ed and was scheduled for completion on November 19, 1973 (R. 68).

The rest of the schedule as portrayed in Pet. Exhibit #1 is fairly

straightforward and reasonable.

The Board does not totally agree with the Agency’s position that

Texaco should be forced to do their compliance in a piecemeal way.

The economies of doing engineering on a large project and the ability

to get a large overview of the problem and solution are reasonable in

an operation the size of Texaco in Lockport. The Board will not con-

done a corporation lumping together all environmental projects under

one program just to forestall compliance, but the Board will allow

such consolidation of workload when it applies to one process unit

as is involved here.

Texaco has shown to the Board a good faith effort to bring this

unit into compliance. Were it not for the delay with Brown and-Root,

we would have had no doubt about allowing Texaco the full time as re-

quested. We are resolving this doubt in Texaco’s favor. To determine

that Texaco deserved a variance, which we find it does, as there is un—

rebutted testimony that compliance cannot be achieved by December 31,

1973 (R. 42, 71, 88), but to give it for a period shorter~than the evi-

dence shows it can be done would serve no logical pur~ose. This being

the case, the Board will grant the variance until Noverpber 1, 1974,

with the intent that any request for a new variance will be brought

under the strictest scrutiny. It is implicit in the Board’s order that

Petitioner will expedite installation of equipment. Should the agita-

tors arrive significantly before the incinerator, every attempt should

be made to install them so as to abate at least part of the emissions

before the expiration of this variance.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of

law of the Board.

10

—

418

—5—

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:

Texaco, Inc., is granted a variance from Rule 205 (g) un-

til November 1, 1974, for the agitator treating unit at

its refinery adjacent to Lockport, Illinois. Said var-

iance is to allow installation of air pollution control

equipment to comply with 205 (g).

2) Within thirty-five (35) days from the entry of this Order,

and continuing quarterly, Texaco shall submit, in writing,

progress reports indicating progress made toward completing

its proposed control program to the Agency and this Board.

3) Texaco shall, within 35 days from the 

date of this Order,

post a performance bond in a form satisfactory to the

Agency in the amount of $100,000, guaranteeing installa-

tion of the above-ordered air pollution control equipment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Mr. Dumelle

dissents.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by the

Board on the 20th day of December, 1973, by a vote of 4 to 1.

10—419