ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Nay 22, 1975
SHELL OIL COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 75-90
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
William D. Maer, Attorney, appeared for the Petitioner;
William
A. Erdman, Attorney, appeared for the Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Zeitlin):
This Petition for Variance was filed by the Shell Oil
Company (Shell) on February 24, 1975. The Petition seeks
relief from the Particulate Standards of Rule 203(d) (1) of
Chapter 2: Air Pollution, of the Pollution Control Board
(Board) Regulations. PCB Regs., Ch. 2, Rule 203(d) (1). The
Variance is sought for Shell’s Wood River Refinery, for six
months, from May 30, 1975, to November 30, 1975, pending the
installation by Shell of particulate emission controls.
Shell’s Wood River Refinery, located in Madison County,
near the town of Roxana, Illinois, employs approximately
1,800 individuals, and is capable of processing approximately
290,000 barrels of crude oil per day (R.45). Of the crude
oil processed, about 30 is converted into a “heavy oil”,
which is not marketable (R.42). This heavy oil cannot be
processed in the regular refinery units, but must instead be
processed through catalytic cracker units, which are used to
process the heavy oil into useful products such as gasoline,
home heating oil and propane, and also into feedstocks which
can be further processed in the other units at the refinery
(R.7,42). The catalytic cracker operates by contacting the
heavy oil with catalyst, a finely divided material similar
to powdered sugar in consistency, at a high temperature.
During operation of the catalytic cracker, coke is deposited
on the catalyst. It is then necessary to remove the coke
from the catalyst in order to render the catalyst useable
for further cracking operations.
17
—
147
—2—
The coke is removed from the catalyst in a “catalytic
regenerator”, where the coke is burned by a controlled
combustion to remove it (r.8). That controlled combustion
requires air, which must subsequently l?e removed (along with
its component nitrogen) from the catalyst by the use of
cyclones. The cyclones, however, are not entirely efficient,
and do not remove all of the catalyst entrained in the
combustion vapors (R.8). Two such catalytic regenerators
with their attendant cyclones are the subject of this
Variance Petition.
Shell’s Petition (at page 2) states that typical catalyst
losses to the atmosphere for its catalytic cracker Unit
No.
1 are approximately 268 lbs./hr.; the losses for Unit No. 2
are estimated at 177 lbs./hr. Shell estimates that to
achieve compliance with the Particulate Limitations of Rule
203(d) (1) it must achieve an emission rate of 79 lbs/hr.
from each unit. (The Agency calculation for this figure is
80 lbs./hr.; since Shell is attempting to achieve a lower
emission figure, we see no reason to question its computation.)
Under Rule 203(1) (5), Shell’s Wood River facility is
subject to limitations of Rule 2-2.51 of the Old Rules and
Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution, promulgated
by the predecessor of this Board. The stricter limitations
of Rule 203 (d) (1) will become effective as against the Wood
River Facility after May 30, 1975.
This Board initially noted the particulate problems
which exist with respect to catalytic regenerators when
adopting Rule 203(d) (1). In the Matter of Emission Standards,
R7l-73, 4 PCB 298, 314 (1972). The Board there noted that
these units have “enormous process weights” and set up
special regulations to achieve the “high degree of control
required” (id.). (The Board also noted that such a high
degree of control is justified by virtue of the value of the
recovered catalyst, as well as by the considerable quantities
of particulate matter emitted.) The Board noted in that
Opinion that even at that early date, “the more stringent
requirement was already met by several Illinois installations
employing electrostatic precipitators...” (id.).
Shell first reached a decision to use electrostatic
precipitators on both catalytic regenerators at the Wood
River Facility in mid 1973. At that time, Shell ~xpected to
have these precipitators in operation by April, 1975,
allowing ample start—up time before the May 30, 1975 compliance
date for Rule 203 (d) (1). This Variance is now sought by
Shell due to alleged delays in the construction of its
electrostatic precipitators, which will prevent compliance
with Rule 203(d) (1) until November, 1975.
17
—
148
—3—
The majority of the testimony introduced by Shell at
the hearing held April 10, 1975 related to problems which
Shell claims it has encountered in the construction of its
electrostatic precipitators. Similarly, allegations of
difficulties encountered in construction form the bulk of
the Petition itself. Shell presented evidence and testimony
indicating serious difficulties in obtaining the necessary
steel to erect the planned electrostatic precipitators;
further delays have resulted from weather and labor difficulti~s,
The problems are further compounded by the lack of adequate
working space at the Wood River Refinery (Pet.Eix. 4,5 are
photographs demonstrating the cramped quarters in which the
construction is taking place). Shell also introduced consider~~.b1e
testimony indicating that these delays were the result of
factors beyond its control. The Environmental Protection
Agency (Agency), in its Recommendation filed April 14, 1975,
agrees that “most of the delay in installing the precipitators
seems to be due to circumstances beyond Shell’s control.”
Testimony was also introduced as to the hardship which
would be imposed should the Board fail to grant this variance
(e.g. R.43,44). Storage facilities at the Wood River Facility
are limited, and were the catalytic crackers forced to cease
operation, it would soon be necessary to shut down the
entire Wood River Refinery. There would simply be nowhere
to store the heavy oil now processed by those units. Further,
it is apparent that reduction or slow down of the operation
of the catalytic crackers would not reduce emissions (R.42).
It seems that operation of the catalytic converters, with
their attendant particulate emissions, is essentially an all
or nothing proposition.
As to the question of hardship, this Board may take
notice--in light of the essential nature of the catalytic
crackers for operation of the entire refinery——of facts
relating to the economic benefits provided by the Wood River
Facility. In light of the energy crisis, we note both the
total quantity of petroleum refined at the Wood River
Refinery, as described above, and that approximately 40-50
of Shell’s gasoline production from the refinery is produced
on the catalytic crackers, as well as a substantial quantity
of home heating fuel and propane (R.42). The value of the
1800 jobs provided by this facility need not be commented on
at length in light of current distressed economic conditions.
The Agency recommends that the Board grant this Variance.
The Agency feels that Shell’s compliance program with regard
to Rule 203(d) (1) is a reasonable one, despite the November
30, 1975 target date. In addition, the Agency states that
despite the refinery’s location adjacent to residential
areas, it has received no objection to the granting of this
Variance. As will be discussed shortly, the Agency also
notes that the Shell Refinery is located in a “highly
industrialized area” (Rec.3).
The Board agrees that a Variance appears to be warranted
17
—
149
—4—
here. Shell has demonstrated considerable good faith in its
attempts to achieve compliance with Rule 203(d) (1) by May
30, 1975. Nor does it appear that Shell was dilatory in
filing the Petition in this matter; uncontroverted testimony
indicates that it was not until February, 1975, that Shell
realized it could not achieve compliance in time (R.31).
Prior to that time, (and continuing now), Shell apparently
mounted a maximum effort to achieve compliance. In excess
of $5 million has already been spent, and total cost is
estimated to exceed $5.5 million. In light of the site
congestion discussed above, Shell has employed the maximum
number of workers feasible in the erection process. Shell
has paid premiums to its contractors to keep three crews
working on the project, has paid premiums to the construction
companies themselves, and has used its own influence to
obtain scarce steel and materials for the contractors (E.g.
R.ll,l2,35)
The only disputed matter at the hearing of April 10,
1975 was the matter of a performance bond. The Agency
suggested that the Board require a $100,000 performance
bond; Shell claims that in light of its past efforts, such a
bond should not be required. We are inclined to agree with
the Petitioner. However, we also feel that in light of
Section 36 of the Environmental Protection Act, and its
clear directive from the General Assembly, some performance
bond is warranted. Ill. Rev. Stat. Ch. 111 1/2, Sec. 1036
(1975). Weighing both the good faith demonstrated by Shell
and the quantity of work remaining to be done, a performance
bond of $25,000 will serve to assure compliance with our
Regulations.
Finally, we must discuss those factors mandated by the
recent case of Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
43 U.S.L.W. 4467(U.S. No. 73—1742, April 16, 1975). The
Supreme Court there stated that no variance may be granted
absent a showing that such a grant will not result in a
violation of the national ambient air quality standards, or
a failure to maintain those standards. Here, Petitioner has
demonstrated the opposite; Shell introduced testimony and
evidence which are uncontroverted, and which clearly indicate
that a grant of this variance will not result in such a
violation.
The following testimony of Richard Dreith, a Shell
employee, adequately summarizes that testimony and evidence:
I will add this, I think it is a reasonable judgment
then to state that the emissions from the current
control devices of the catalytic crackers at the Wood
River Refinery are not significantly affecting the
meeting of primary air standards in the Alton-Wood
River area, and any delay in the installation of the
ele~trostat~e~::e~ipita~ors would not affect the
attainment of tme primary air standards, since these
standards hav~already been attained (R.l3).
17
—
150
—5—
Petitioner’s Exhibit 2, introduced at the April 10
hearing, shows particulate measurementE t n in the ge:
area of Wood River Refinery from 1967 until
I
7L The ~
figures, the most recent ones available at the cime of
hearing, indicate a violation of the 75 ug/m3 primary ste ~
for particulates at only one of three nearb~ ilations. Tka
maximum 24 hour average of 260 ug/m3 was never approached.
The three monitoring stations for which Petitioner ~s
submitted data lie in a line running approximately from
northwest to southeast. The Alton station, (Alton 01), at
103 E. 3d St., is about 5 miles northwest of Wood River; the
Edwardsville station, at 132 N. Kansas St., is about 10
miles southeasterly from Wood River; and the Wood River
station, at 54 Walcott Avenue, is about 2—1/2 miles northwest
of Petitioner’s refinery.
The figures presented by Shell in its Exhibit 2 clearly
indicate a “trend” in the Wood River area towards compliance
with the primary standards for particulates. The figures
presented clearly demonstrate a drastic and significant
increase in the air quality for that area. One of the
stations, (the only one for which figures were available
during the entire 1967 -1973 period), showed that over a
seven year period the annual geometric mean for particulate
loading had declined from 100 ug/m3 to 69 ug/m3. The other
two stations for which 1973 figures were available demonstrate
five year declines (1969
-
1973) of from 158 ug/m3 to 79
ug/m3, and from 81 ug/m3 to 54 ug/m3, respectively. Considering
both the figures and the trend which they were stated to
represent (R.13), we find the conclusion by Petitioner’s
witness that the area in question meets the health-related
primary standard to be in accord with the weight of the
evidence (R.l3,l4,l7).
17
—
isi
—6—
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE TRENDS IN THE
ALTON—WOOD
RIVER AREA
FROM 1973 ILLINOIS AIR SAMPLING NETWORK REPORT
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAl., PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL AIR STANDARDS FOR SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
-
ADOPTED 4/30/71
Primary Standard Secondary Standard
ALTON/WOOD RIVER
Annual
Maximum
TRENDS
Geometric
24-Hour AverageMean
260
75
~ig/M
~ig1M
3
3
150
60
,ug/Mpg/M33
Year
1967
Annual1968
1969Geometric1970Mean1971
—
AJgIM19723
1973
Sampling Station
Alton01
100 93 106 86 80 88 69
Wood River 01
ill 83 134 116 102
—
—
Wood River 03
—
—
158 115 101 94
79
Wood River, Sewage Plant
—
106
—
—
—
—
—
Edwardsville
—
—
81 86 78 69
54
1973 SUSPENDED PARTICULATE
Number of
Maximum
~ig/M
24—Hr
3
Annual Geometric
Samples
Average
Mean
Sampling Station
Alton 01
46
146
69
Wood River 03
57
153
79
Edwardsville
60
123
54
National Primary Standard
(260)
(75)
1/ Most recent report
2/ 54 Walcott Avenue
—7—
The validity of the trend alleged by Petitioner is
borne out by figures which have only recently become available
to the Board. An Agency report which includes data for 1974
indicates that the Wood River station, with a 1973 annual
geometric mean of 79 ug/m3, has now achieved compliance with
the national primary standard, Similarly, the other two
monitoring stations show either improved or maintained air
quality. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Division
of Air Pollution Control, Annual Report To The Pollution Control
Board, Part E, at 3,4 (1975).
The Board has previously noted the importance of meeting
these federal primary standards, which it described as
“essential for health reason”. Although the Board has
noted, in the Emission Standards Opinion cited above, the
fact that there were problems with regard to particulates
and the federal primary ambient air quality standard in the
general Wood River area, 4 PCB 316, the figures noted there
were for the year 1970, and were for areas in Granite City
adjacent to steel mills. In view of the uncontroverted
proof presented here, and the fact Granite City is approximately
25 miles south of Wood River, Petitioner’s figures and
conclusions are neither inherently impossible nor improbable.
On the contrary, they are supported by competent testimony
and evidence.
Our determination here as regards attainment of the
ambient air quality standards is a specific one, limited to
the contributions of the individual source in question for
the area shown by the evidence to be that affected by the
grant of the Variance. We do not decide that any entire
region or area has achieved the ambient air quality standards
for particulates, and therefore are (at least on that basis)
eligible for variances under Train. The determination of
the contribution of the emissions of an individual source to
the achievement or failure to achieve an ambient air quality
standard must be specific to that source. The area which
will be effected by the grant of an individual variance must
be decided by the Board on the facts before it; its determination
must be on a case-by-case basis. It will suffice that in
this instance Petitioner has met its burden.
Nor are we stating that a showing of compliance with
the ambient air quality standards is the only relevant test
in the grant of an air Variance. The Board has considered
this question on previous occasions, and has specifically
declined to reach such a conclusion:
To excuse compliance with emission standards
whenever air—quality standards are met would be
to abandon the emission standards altogether.
Even in areas that are now cleaner than required
by the air-quality standards.. .there is a need
17
—
153
—
B—
for compliance with emission standards...
“Illinois Power Co. (Wood River #5) v.
EPA, PCB 72190, 6 PCB 17, 28 (1972)
(The decision there, by Mr. Currie, related
to sulfur dioxide.); see also, 4 PCB at
309
(“. .
.air quality standards are set
not at the optimum level of air quality,
but at the worst level we are prepared to
tolerate if we must.”)
We merely decide that when such a showing has been
made, it is within our power to grant such a Variance. The
other relevant factors set out in the Act, our Rules, and
our prior decisions must still be consideized. Shell has
also met that burden.
This Board has in the past stated that the burden of
proof in Variance matters is on the Petitioner. Swords
v. EPA, PCB 70-6, 1 PCB
5,
7 (1970) (This was the Board’s
first reported decision, where Mr. Lawton stated, “the
evidence to justify the allowance must be substantial and
convincing.”) The courts have agreed that the burden is on
the Petitioner seeking a variance. See, e.g., Shell
Oil Co. v. PCB, 321 N.E.2d 170, 172 (1975); City of Nattoon, v. EPA,
296 N.E.2d 383, 387 (1973). We find here that this burden
now applies to the showing required under the Train case,
supra, and that Shell has met that burden.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD that
Petitioner Shell Oil Corporation be granted for its Wood
River Refinery a Variance from the particulate standards of
Rule 203 (d) (1), for the period May 30, 1975 until November
30, 1975, subject to the following conditions:
(a) Shell Oil Company shall post a $25,000
performance bond with the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, in a form satisfactory to that
Agency, to assure completion of the construction
contemplated in the accompanying Opinion. Such
bond shall be posted within 30 days of the date
of this Order, at the following address:
Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
Control Program Coordinator
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
17
—
154
—9—
(b) Petitioner shall submit written progress
reports to the Agency, at the above address, detailing the
progress made in the construction contemplated in the
accompanying Opinion; such reports shall each cover a two
month period, and shall be submitted within two weeks of the
close of such periods, which are April-Nay, June-July,
August-September, and October-November, 1975.
(c) Within 30 days of the date of the adoption of
this Order Petitioner Shell Oil Corporation shall complete
and submit to the Environmental Protection Agency, at the
above address, the following certification:
CERTIFICATION
I(We), __________________________, have read,
and fully understand the Order of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board in PCB 75-90, Shell Oil Co., Wood River
Refinery v. EPA. I(We) hereby accept the Variance granted
by said Order, understanding that all conditions thereto
shall be binding and enforceable.
Signed:______________________________
Title: ________________________________
Date:_______________________________
Mr. Dumelle dissents.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board Hereby certify that the above Q~inionand
Order of the Board were adopted on the
~~‘‘
day of
_________________
1975 by a vote of
to_______
~
Christan L. Moffett, ~4~e/k
Illinois Pollution Coi4t~ol Board
17
—
155