ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December
14,
1978
SHELL OIL CO.,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB
78—190
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
MS.
BARBARA
LITTLE
EVANS
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
PETITIONER.
MR.
REED
NEUMAN,
ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
Shell Oil Co.
(Shell)
filed a Petition for Variance on July 24,
1978.
Shell seeks a variance from Rule 204(f) (1) (A) of the Air
Pollution Regulations
(Chapter
2 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations)
for a sulfur recovery unit (SRU-2) at its petroleum refinery located
in Wood River, Madison County, Illinois.
The Environmental Protec-
tion Agency
(Agency)
filed its Recommendation on August 28, 1978.
A hearing was held on October 30, 1978 in Edwardsville; no citizen
witnesses testified.
The
purpose
of
the
SRU-2
unit
at the Wood River Refinery is to
control
sulfur dioxide emissions and recover sulfur from Shell’s
refinery as well as from refineries owned by Clark Oil Co. and
Amoco Oil Co.
Until April,
1976, the sulfur recovery facilities used
by Shell were owned by Anlin Co.
In 1973, Shell, Clark and Amoco
contracted with Anlin to build additional sulfur recovery capacity
at Wood River to provide capacity for Shell to process higher sulfur
crude oil and to provide sulfur recovery capacity for Clark and Amoco.
Anlin, therefore, designed SRU-2, utilizing a unique process intended
to meet Rule 204 (f) (1) (A) whereby the final converter operates
below the dew—point of sulfur to significantly improve sulfur
recovery capability over the conventional process.
32—261
—2—
In April,
1976,
Shell exercised an option to purchase and
acquired the facilities.
Construction of SRU-2 was completed in
October,
1976,
and the unit was started—up
in November.
In subse-
quent months,
however,
Shell became aware of serious deficiencies
and operating problems which rendered SRU-2 unreliable.
These in-
cluded problems with the utilities system,
inability
of the unit to
handle hydrocarbons, and inadequate winterizing,
all of which were
corrected.
Shell also found that much of the equipment used in the
unique process design was ineffective and inoperable and was not
able
to bring about compliance with Rule 204(f) (1) (A).
Beginning
in December,
1977, Shell reengineered the design and modified the
equipment at a cost of $500,000
in an effort to meet the 2000 ppm
SO2 standard.
However, pretesting indicated
t:hat the plant still
could not meet the standard.
Shell now intends
to install
a Shell Claus Off-Gas Treatment
Unit
(SCOT
unit)
at an approximate cost of $15,000,000
to meet the
standard and requests a variance for a period of eighteen months.
Construction of the proposed SCOT unit is
to begin by September
1,
1978,
and is
to be completed by October
1,
1979.
Final compliance
is
to be achieved by November
1,
1979.
Shell’s construction schedule
is attached
to the Petition as Exhibit D.
The Agency believes that
the proposed equipment will bring about compliance with the standard
and that the schedule for installation of the equipment
is reasonable.
Rule 204(f) (1) (A)
sets a 2000 parts per million SO2 standard for
process emission sources.
Until
the SCOT unit is
in operation,
the
two trains of the SRU-2 unit will run without switching of converters,
and the SO2 emissions will be 13,000 parts per million.
Present SO2
emissions from SRU-2 are 2,937 pounds per hour, which
is approximately
12,829 tons per year.
The Agency calculated the allowable emissions
under Rule 204(f) (1) (A)
to be equivalent
to 1,974 tons per year.
The sampling station nearest to SRU—2 reported the annual
arithmetic mean for SO2
to he
.025 ppm in
1977,
which,
although the
highest average in the State in 1977,
is below the primary ambient
air quality standard.
Wood River recorded one excursion
(no viola-
tion)
of the 24—hour primary standard (Petitioner’s Exhibit A, p.105).
The Wood River Area is presently unclassified as
an attainment or
non-attainment area for SO2
(Federal Register Vol.
43,
p.
8987,
March
3,
1978).
The Board finds that operation of SRU-2 for the
duration of the requested variance would not prevent attainment or
maintenance of the ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide.
Shell claims and the Agency agrees that denial of the requested
variance would result
in
an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship.
Shell has diligently attempted
to achieve compliance.
Shell spent
$500,000 redesigning SRU-2
to meet the standard and now proposes
to
spend an additional $15,000,000
to build the SCOT unit, which
should result in compliance.
In
fact,
Shell indicated at the hearing
32—262
—3—
that the SCOT unit can meet Federal New Source Performance Standards
for a sulfur plant
(R.
22).
Furthermore,
the SRU-2 unit is the
primary air pollution control for not only Shell’s refinery but also
the nearby refineries owned by Clark and Amoco.
The Board finds
that the harm to the environment caused by granting of this variance
is so outweighed by the hardship to Shell which denial would impose
as
to render that hardship arbitrary and unreasonable.
We will,
therefore, grant the requested variance.
Shell
has requested and the Agency has recommended that the
variance be granted until November
1,
1979.
Section
35 of the
Environmental Protection Act was recently amended to require that
variances granted by the Board be consistent with the Clean Air Act
of 1977
(42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.)
.
Section
113(d)
of the Clean Air
Act allows the Board
to grant sources a delay in compliance from any
requirement in the State Implementation Plan
(SIP)
only until July
1,
1979.
Both Shell and the Agency argue,
however, that if a variance
meets the procedural requirements of notice and hearing, which
in
this case have been met
(R.
18-19), it may be submitted to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency as a revision to the State Implemen-
tation Plan pursuant to Section
110 of the Clean Air Act.
The Board
agrees with this interpretation.
We will,
therefore, grant the
variance until November
1,
1979,
subject to
the condition that it
be submitted to and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency as
a revision
to the Illinois State Implementation Plan.
If
the variance is not approved as
a State Implementation Plan revision,
it will terminate
on July
1,
1979,
and Shell will be subject to
non-compliance penalties if compliance has not been achieved.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact an conclusions of
law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Shell Oil
Co.
is hereby granted variance from Rule
204(f) (1) (A)
of Chapter
2
for its Wood River Refinery until November
1,
1979,
subject
to the
following conditions:
1.
This variance shall terminate
on July
1,
1979
if it is
not submitted to and approved, by the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency as
a revision to the Illinois State Implemen-
tation Plan;
32—263
—4—
2.
Shell Oil Co. shall within 45 days of the date of this
Order
furnish
to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
a performance surety bond in the amount of $50,000
to be
released upon timely completion of the project on November
1,
1979;
3.
Shell Oil Co.
shall, by November
1,
1979,
apply for an
operating permit for SRU-2 and submit to the Agency stack
test results which show compliance with the standard;
4.
Shell Oil Co.
shall at least five days prior to the
stack tests notify the Manager, Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III,
ll5A West Main Street,
Collinsville, Illinois
(phone number 618/345-0700)
of the
dates and times of the stack tests and permit Agency per-
sonnel to be present during the stack tests;
5.
Shell Oil Co.
shall submit progress reports
on October
1,
1978; January
1, 1979; April
1,
1979;
July
1,
1979;
and
October
1,
1979
to the Agency’s Region III at Collinsville
at the address mentioned in paragraph
4 above;
6.
Shell Oil Co.
is hereby notified that,
if compliance
is not achieved by July
1,
1979,
it may be subject to non-
compliance penalties pursuant to Section 120 of the Clean
Air Act of 1977;
7.
Within forty—five of after the date of this Board
Order Shell Oil Co. shall execute and send to:
Mr. John
D. Williams, Technical Advisor,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois
62706,
a certification of acceptance
of this variance by which it agrees to be bound by its
terms and conditions.
This forty-five day period shall be held in abeyance
for any period which this matter is appealed.
The form of
said certification shall be as
follows:
CERTIFICATION
I
(We) ______________________________ having read and fully
understanding the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
PCB 78—190 hereby accepts the said Order and agrees to be bound by
all terms and conditions thereof.
SIGNED ________________________________
TITLE
DATE
32—264
—5—
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, h reby certify
the
day
of
~~bov?~)~inion
and Order were adopted on
1978 by a vote of
~_p
2t~leiEk
Christan
L. Mof
Illinois Pollutio~’~ntrolBoard
32—265