ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 3, 1974

UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA

PETITIONER

v.

)

PCB 73—448

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESPONDENT

H. DORN STEWART, JR., VICE PRESIDENT, in behalf of UNION OIL COMPANY

THOMAS R. CASPER, ATTORNEY, in behalf of the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Marder)

This case comes to the Board on the petition of Union Oil Company

of California, filed October 24, 1973, with the Board. Variance is

requested for 120 days from Rule 205 (a) (2) (A) and Rule 205 (b) (1)

of the Air Pollution Regulations for Union Oil’s light oil terminal

located at 4801 5. Harlem Avenue, Forest View, Cook County, Illinois.

The Agency recommended the variance be granted in its recommendation

filed December 14, 1973. No hearing was held.

Petitioner filed an application for an operating permit (APC—60)

with the Agency on April 10, 1973, to operate this facility. The ter-

minal stores 105,000 barrels of gasoline and 105,000 barrels of heat-

ing oil. The product is transferred from this facility to trucks for

delivery to homes, service stations, and commercial accounts. A per-

mit was issued on June 20, 1973, to operate until December 31, 1977.

The Petitioner alleges the facility’s gasoline storage tanks are

equipped with fixed roofs, and the gasoline, loading facilities are not

equipped with air pollution control equipment as required by Rule 205

(a) (2) (A) and 205 (b) (1)

Gasoline handling at the facility was scheduled to end on Decem-

ber 31, 1973. Petitioner alleged that construction of a new loading

facility at its Lemont refinery has not gone according to schedule,

and will not be completed by January 1, 1974. Petitioner alleges and

the Agency agrees that the Lemont facility will be completed in the

time of the requested variance.

10—557

---

—2—

Petitioner alleges further that if a variance is not granted, it

would close the Forest View facility leading to great hardships as

follows:

1) Union would only be able to supply gasoline to the Chicago area

through its facility in Elk Grove. This location is such as to cause

severe logistic problems in serving the chicago area.

2) Elk Grove does not have the capacity of serving the trucks that

would be shifted from Forest View.

3) Many trucks served by Forest View could not be handled at Elk

Grove. Elk Grove has bottom loading only, which method many trucks

are not equipped to handle.

4) Forest View supplies six other companies.

The Board takes notice that the Petition is entirely devoid of en-

vironmental impact data. There is also no mention of the type or quant-

ity of emissions. The lack of such data makes it very difficult for

the Board to reach an intelligent decision in this matter. Union Oil

has been before this Board on other occasions and knows full well its

burden of proof. The Board will reluctantly grant this short variance,

but in so doing puts Petitioner on notice that a petition of this type

will not suffice in future actions. The reasons for granting this var-

iance are as follows:

1) Because of the

energy

crisis, the possible loss of this facility

could cause a greater hardship on the general public than on Petitioner.

2) The variance is a rather short one and will result in termina-

tion of operations at this facility, and resumption of operations at

a new facility which will be in full compliance.

3) The reason for delay of compliance is in the Board’s opinion

not self-imposed. Petitioner alleges and the Agency concurs that the

new facilities would have been ready by Jan. 1, 1974, had construction

gone according to schedule.

4) Residents of the area had no objections to the variance, indi-

cating that Petitioner’s emissions were not noticeably offensive.

5) The unduly long time taken by the Agency in filing its recomrnen-

dation (51 days), coupled with its recommendation for a grant, leaves

the Board in a position of denying a variance petition, which was filed

before the effective date of regulation, after that effective date. Had

the Agency been more timely in its recommendation, or had it recommend-

ed a denial, the Board may have very well asked for and received more

information before January 1, 1974. Although the passage of 21 days

prior to receipt of an Agency recommendation is by no means a reason

for a grant of variance, in view of the other circumstances involved,

the Board will rely on the Agency~sjudgment in the instant case.

6) From past experience in matters of this type the Board feels

10 —558

---

—3—

that the emissions generated will be of little environmental impact.

It is also noted that this variance will cover the colder months when

instances of photochemical smog will be at a minimum.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of

law of the Board.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:

1. Petitioner is granted a variance until May 1, 1974, from Rule

205 (a) (2) (A) and 205 (b) (1) for its facilities in Forest

View, Illinois.

2. Said variance shall terminate on any date sooner than

May 1,

1974, in the event that Petitioner’s loading facility at Le-

mont is completed.

3. Petitioner shall make every effort to hasten construction of

its Lemont facilities and shall, commencing 10 days from the

date of this Order, and monthly thereafter, report to the En-

vironmental Protection Agency as to progress made in this re-

gard.

4. Petitioner shall notify the Agency and the Board 10 days

prior to the date that the Lemont facility assumes operations

presently situated at Forest View.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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 3rd day of January, 1974, by a vote of 5 to 0.