ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December
3,
1992
AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY,
)
AMOCO PETROLEUM ADDITIVES
)
COMPANY,
WOOD
RIVER,
)
ILLINOIS,
)
Petitioners,
)
v.
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PCB 92-78
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
(Variance)
)
Respondent.
)
DALE
H.
IWATAKI
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF PETITIONER;
AND
ANN ZWICK APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
This matter is before the Board on a petition for variance
filed on May 26,
1992, by Amoco Chemical Company and Amoco
Petroleum Additives Company.
Amoco filed an amended petition on
July 31,
1992 and a second amended petition on August 5,
1992.’
Amoco seeks a three year variance (i.e.,
from May 15,
1992,
to
December 31,
1995)
from the requirements of 35 Ill. Adm. Code
219.986, entitled “Control Requirements”, and 219.987, entitled
“Compliance Schedule”,
for its detergent additives plant
(DAP)
process vessels, multipurpose additives plant
(MAP)
phenate
filters,
MAP
ZOP vessels, MAP phenate vessels, and MAP ZOP
filters.
(Amended Pet. Amended.
p. A #3,
pp.
2,
12,
40.)
Amoco
also seeks variance relief from the above—mentioned regulations
‘In its May
26,
1992 variance petition, Amoco
sought relief
from the requirements
of
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 219.966 and 219.967
(Subpart RR).
After meeting with the Agency, Amoco and the Agency
determined that the sources in the petition were subject to 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 219.986 and 219.987
(Subpart TT)
and that the sources
that were subject to Subpart RR were controlled prior to April
1,
1989,
as required by 35
Ill.
Adin.
Code 215.
(Agency’s Rec. par.
2.)
Amoco,
in its July 31, 1992 amended variance petition, sought
relief from the requirements of
Subpart TT.
Amoco claimed that
some
of the
information
contained in
the amended
petition was
confidential.
On
August
5,
1992,
the
Board
issued
an
order
directing Amoco to file another amended petition because its July
31,
1992 petition did not comport with the Board’s trade
secret
regulations.
Amoco comported with the Board’s order via the filing
of its August
26,
1992 second amended variance petition.
0137-053J
2
for its DAP boration vessel from May 15,
1992 until March
2,
1992
(i.e.,
six months after the Agency granted Amc~coa construction
permit for installation of a capture and control system)
~2
(Amended Pet. Amended p.
B #10,
pp.
2,
12,
40.)
On September 28,
1992,
the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (Agency) filed its recommendation.
On November 13,
1992,
the Agency filed an amended variance recommendation.
The Agency
recommends that the variance be granted subject to certain
conditions.
Hearing was held in this matter on November 4,
1992,
in Alton,
Illinois.
No members of the public were present at the
hearing.
No post-hearing briefs were filed.
The Board finds that Amoco has presented adequate proof that
immediate compliance with 35
Ill. Adm. code 219.986 and 219.987
would result in the imposition of an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship.
Accordingly, the Board grants Amoco’s variance
request, subject to the conditions set forth in the attached
order.
BACKGROUND
Amoco Petroleum Additives Company is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Amoco Chemical Company that,
in turn,
is a
subsidiary of Amoco Corporation.
(Tr.
9; Amended Pet.
p.
4.)
Amoco Petroleum Additives Company manufactures over 45 million
gallons of lubricant additives for motor oil, gasoline, and
diesel fuel annually, and employs 303 persons.
(Tr.
10,
11;
Amended Pet. p.
4.)
Both Amoco Petroleum Additives Company and
Amoco Chemical Company are located in Wood River, Madison County,
Illinois.
(Amended Pet. Amended p. A #1.)
Wood River is part of
the East St. Louis non—attainment area for ozone.
(Amended Pet.
Amended p. A #1.)
The Amoco site encompasses approximately 500 acres.
(Amended Pet. p.
4.)
Amoco Petroleum Additives Company is
located on approximately 190 acres of the site.
(Amended Pet.
p.
4; Agency Rec. par.
18.)
Wood River bounds the site on the north
and east and has
a population of 12,448.
(Amended Pet.
p.
4;
Agency Rec. par.
18.)
The nearest residences are located
approximately one thousand feet west of the site.
(Agency Rec.
par.
18.)
Clark Oil & Refining Corporation’s
(Clark) petroleum
refinery and Shell Oil Company’s
(Shell) sulfur recovery unit,
two other VOM emitting sources, are located south of the site.
(Agency Rec. par.
18.)
Amoco is seeking the variance for 23 sources that are
located at Amoco Petroleum Additives Company in the DAP, the MAP,
2The
DAP
boration vessel
is the largest emission source
of
those covered by the petition.
Cl 37-0532
3
and the utilities main oil/water separator.
(Tr.
26; Amended
Pet. Amended
p. A #6,
p.
9.)
The VON emissions from the
processes at issue are olefinic hydrocarbons that constitute the
lighter boiling components of 5 W oil which,
in turn, may
constitute as much as 45 percent of
a blended additive product.
(Amended Pet.
p.
9.)
Other VON emissions vary with the source,
including those hydrocarbons, such as dodecylphenol used at the
MAP, that are specific to the process at that unit.
(Amended
Pet. p.
9.)
Amoco estimates that it has a total of 24 tons per year,
or
five pounds per hour,
of uncontrolled emissions.
(Tr.
21,
28;
Amended Pet.
p.
10.)
The total amount of actual VON emissions
from the plant are greater than five tons per year.
(Amended Pet.
Amended p. A #7,
p.
9.)
Approximately 10½ tons of VOM are
emitted from the
DAP
boration vessel.
(Tr. 28; Amended Pet.
Amended p. B #10.)
Source testing has identified actual
emissions from some units and has indicated that some sources
will not require controls based on the 2.5 tons per calendar year
exemption found in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 219.980(c),
if total VOM
emissions do not exceed five tons per year.
(Amended Pet.
Amended p. A #7,
p.
9.)
The VOM sources generally exhaust
anywhere from ground level to approximately 50 feet above ground.
(Amended Pet.
p.
9.)
On April 23,
1992, Amoco Petroleum Additives Company agreed
to sell certain assets to Ethyl Petroleum Company (Ethyl).
(Tr.
11; Amended Pet. Amended p. A #5.)
Although the Wood River plant
was not sold, Amoco Petroleum Company agreed to manufacture
petroleum additive products at the facility for Ethyl until 1995.
(Tr.
12; Amended Pet. Amended pp. A #5, B #16.)
At the end of
such period, the DAP process vessels, MAP phenate filters, MAP
ZOP vessels, MAP phenate vessels, and the MAP ZOP filters will no
longer be operated.
(Tr.
18; Amended Pet. Amended p. A #5,
pp.
3,
38,
40.)
REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK
Amoco requests a variance from
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
219.986
and
219.987.
Section 219.986 provides in pertinent part as follows:
Every owner or operator of an emission source subject
to this Subpart shall comply with the requirements of
subsection
(a),
(b), or
(c)
below.
a)
Emission capture and control equipment which
achieve an overall reduction in uncontrolled
VON emissions of at least 81 percent, or
Section 219.987 provides in pertinent part as follows:
0137-0533
4
Every owner or operator of an emissions source which is
subject to this Subpart shall comply with the
requirements of this Subpart on and after (May 15,
1992.
The above regulations were adopted in R91-8 and became effective
on August
16, 1991.
(Amended Pet. p.
11.)
The regulations
flowed from the Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP)
that the United
States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) had promulgated
for Illinois to achieve compliance in the Chicago ozone non—
attainment area and also amend the State Implementation Plan
(SIP)
for the Metro-East St. Louis area.
(Amended Pet. p.
11.)
The regulations affect Amoco due to the fact that VON emissions
at the plant exceed 100 tons per year.
(Amended Pet.p.
11.)
COMPLIANCE
PROGRAM
In January
1992,
Amoco
retained
Sverdrup
Corporation
Consultants
(Sverdrup)
to identify control technologies that
would achieve a minimum of 81 percent VON emission reductions
required by
35
Ill. Adm. Code 219.896.
(Tr.
31; Amended Pet.
pp.
11,
13,
40.)
Sverdrup completed its review on March
1,
1992.
(Amended Pet. p.
11.)
Sverdrup examined the following control
technologies:
carbon adsorption,
vapor scrubbing,
flare
combustion, direct contact condensing/scrubbing,
and indirect
contact condensing.
(Amended Pet. p.
14.)
Sverdrup chose not to use carbon adsorption because the VOMs
all have high molecular weights and regeneration of the carbon
adsorbent is not possible with the such materials.
(Amended Pet.
p.
14.)
Sverdrup also chose not to use vapor scrubbing because
it would result in the production of a liquid waste stream
(i.e.,
contaminated scrubbing liquid).
(Amended Pet. p.
14.)
Sverdrup
also determined that flare combustion was not applicable for many
of the processing tanks since the VON concentrations of the
effluent streams were relatively low, and excessive requirements
for make-up fuel to the flare would be required.
(Amended Pet. p.
14.)
Sverdrup selected fume incineration for some volatile
solvent tanks.
(Amended Pet.
p.
14.)
Sverdrup selected direct
and indirect contact condensing via ejector scrubbing systems for
those areas that contain VOM5 with very low vapor pressures and
have storage temperatures that are all above ambient because
cooling to near ambient conditions results in removal of a large
percentage of VON emissions.
(Amended Pet.
p.
14.)
Each system
and its proposed VOM control technology is listed below:
0 137-O53~
5
PROCESS
CONTROL
ESTIMATED
SYSTEM
DESCRIP-
TECHNO-
RED~TCTION
COST
TION
LOGY
DAP
Process
Ejector!
99.9
$600,000
Building
Vessels
Scrubbers
MAP
Process
Ejector!
99.9
$900,000
Phenate
(Phenate)
Scrubbers
Vessels
Process
Ejector/
99.9
(Phenate)
Scrubbers
Filters
MAP—ZOPs
Process
Ejector!
99.9
$400,000
Filters
Scrubbers
Filter
Ejector!
90.0
Vessels
Scrubbers
DAP
Process
Ejector!
92.7
$100,000
Boration
Vessel
Scrubber—
Vessel
Direct
Condens-
ing
TOTAL
2,000,000
(Amended Pet.
pp.
10,
15.)
With the exception of the
DAP
boration vessel, Amoco is not
proposing a control program for the sources at issue other than
the slated 1995 plant shutdown.
(Tr. 28-29; Amended Pet. p.
3;
Agency Rec. par.
27.)
During the variance period, however, Amoco
states that it will install controls on a case-by-case basis as
reasonable opportunities arise to control VOM emissions from the
sources at issue.
(Amended Pet. Amended p. B #16, pp.
3,
37,
40-
41; Agency Rec.
par.
27.)
Amoco’s criteria for defining
reasonable opportunities will be based upon improving the plant
working environment and community environmental conditions.
(Amended Pet. Amended p. B #16,
p.
3,
37; Agency Rec. par.
27.)
Again, Amoco notes that reduction of VON emissions will also
occur at the plant when the affected units no longer manufacture
petroleum additives.
(Tr.
29; Amended Pet. p.
37.)
Amoco plans to minimize VON emissions from the
DAP
boration
vessel during the variance period by installing an ejector
scrubbing system on the vessel.
(Amended Pet.
p.
37.)
Amoco’s
permit application indicates that the control equipment will be
operational by November 2,
1992.
(Agency Rec. par.
26.)
on
0137-0535
6
September 2,
1992, the Agency issued a construction and operating
permit.
(Agency Rec. pars.
23,
26.)
The equipment was actually
installed in mid-October 1992.
(Agency’s Amended Rec.)
The
capital cost to install the control equipment on the vessel is
$100,000, and the annual operating costs of such equipment total
$10,000.
On November 4,
1992, Amoco submitted a permit
modification application to the Agency in order to construct and
operate additional control equipment on the vessel and attain
additional VON emission reductions.
(Tr. 39-40; Agency’s Amended
Rec.)
Although Amoco’s permit application is currently being
reviewed by the Agency, Amoco expects to complete construction of
the new control system by early December 1992.
(Agency’s Amended
Rec.)
Amoco adds that it plans to comply with the benzene wastes
national emission (NESHAP) regulations by adding controls which
will reduce VOM emissions from the wastewater sewers and tank T-
120 at the general additives plant 200 section.
(Amended Pet. p.
37.)
Amoco also anticipates a reduction of VON emissions between
0.5 and 2.0 tons per year by complying with the synthetic organic
chemical manufacturing industry (SOCNI) hazardous organic
NESHAP’s
(HON) regulations.
(Amended Pet. p.
37.)
Finally, Amoco asserts that it has already spent over 8.6
million dollars in the last three years to reduce VOM emissions
at the plant.
(Tr. 16,
38.)
A breakdown of such expenses
follows:
UNITS CONTROLLED
COSTS OF CONTROLS
PIBSA Reactor Controls
$150,000
Mercaptan Storage Tank
$15,000
Controls
Benzene Contaminated
$100,000
Wastewater Tank Controls
Benzene Air Stripper Columns
$7,800,000
E-801 A&B
Benzene Storage Tank Controls
$350,000
Benzene Rail Tank Car
Unloading Facility controls
Main Oil/Water Separator Box
$225,000
Cell Covers
TOTAL
$8,640,000
(Amended Pet. p.
28.)
0137-0536
7
In terms of emissions reductions, Amoco notes that it
installed covers on the main oil/water separator before the May
15,
1992 compliance date and that such covers are 85 percent
efficient.
(Amended Pet. Amended p. A #8.)
As a result,
uncontrolled VON emissions from the main oil/water separator have
been reduced from 1083 tons per year to 162 tons per year,
a
reduction of 921 tons per year.
(Amended Pet. Amended p. A #8.)
The installation of covers has also achieved an overall Subpart
TT VON emissions reduction of 82.5 percent.
(Amended Pet.
Amended p. B #13.)
Amoco estimates that the installation of control equipment
on the boration vessel will reduced the vessel’s emissions
by
one half,
or to 0.78 tons per year (i.e.,
two pounds per hour).
(Tr.
21,
28; Amended Pet. Amended p.
B #10.)
Amoco adds that,
with the main oil/water separator and the DAP boration vessel
both being controlled, the overall reduction of Subpart TT VON
emissions is 83.8 percent versus the source by source reduction
requirement of 81 percent.
(Amended Pet. Amended p.
B #13,
p.
41.)
By March 1993, Amoco estimates that total VOM emissions
from the plant will be 13½ tons per year or two and one half to
three pounds per hour.
(Tr. 28.)
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The MAP and
DAP
are approximately 1.5 miles south of the
Agency’s Wood River air monitoring station.
(Tr.
36; Amended
Pet.
pp.
9,
27; Agency Rec. par.
19.)
According to the Agency’s
1989,
1990,
and 1991 Illinois Annual Air Quality Reports, the
Wood River air monitoring station has not exceeded the ozone
attainment limit of 0.12 ppm during those years.
(Tr.
22,
37;
Amended Pet.
p.
27.)
The only air monitoring stations that have
exceeded the ozone limit in the Illinois section of the Metro-
East St. Louis area during that period were the Naryville station
in 1989 and the Edwardsville station in 199l.~
(Amended Pet. p.
27.)
Amoco notes that the Agency’s 1991 Air Quality Report states
as follows:
(the
three year average of expected exceedence (1989—
1991) must be less than 1.0 for a site to attain the
ozone standard.
Even though ozone levels increased in
1991,
there were no sites in Illinois for which the
three year average (1989-1991) was above 1.0....
3The Maryville station is approximately 20 miles southeast of
Wood River.
(Amended Pet.
p.
27.)
The Edwardsville station
is
approximately
15 miles southeast of Wood River.
(Amended Pet.
p.
27.)
o~370537
8
(Amended Pet.
p.
27.)
Based on the above, Amoco reasons that the Metro-East St. Louis
areas’
moderate non—attainment rating for ozone should be changed
to an attainment rating based on the fact that the area has had
few reported ozone levels above 0.12 ppm since 1989.
(Amended
Pet.
pp.
12,
27,
40.)
Amoco also states that it does not expect any adverse impact
on human, plant, or animal life, or on the environment during the
variance period because it plans to operate its facility at
production rates similar to those covered by the Agency’s 1989,
1990,
and 1991 Air Quality Reports and because the ozone
attainment level at the Wood River monitoring station was never
exceeded during that period of time.
(Amended Pet. Amended p.
B
#15,
pp.
27,
40.)
Amoco also bases its conclusion on certain
industrial hygiene data that indicates that the VON emission
level
at the plant has not had an adverse impact employee health
or safety.
(Tr. 37.)
The Agency agrees that its monitor closest to Amoco has not
indicated an exceedence of the primary ozone standard of 0.120
ppm since 1988.
(Agency Rec. par.
19.)
The Agency adds that all
of its monitoring sites in Madison County measured ozone
exceedences during that year.
(Agency Rec. par.
19.)
The Agency
also adds, that Amoco,
Clark,
and Shell funded an air monitoring
project to determine concentrations of several VOMs in the
ambient air in the refinery area.
(Agency Rec.
par.
20.)
Five
monitoring sites were operated between December 1990,
and
December 1991.
(Tr. 21; Agency Rec. par.
20.)
The Agency
reviewed the results of the project and determined that there
were no measured concentrations of VOM5 at a level to pose a risk
to the public in the area.
(Tr. 21—22; Agency Rec. par.
20.)
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL
LAW
Section 35 of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act),
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1991,
ch.
111½,
par.
1035, allows the Board to grant
variances consistent with the provisions of the Clean Air Act,
42
U.S.C 7401 ~
~q.
(1990).
(Agency Rec. par.
24.)
The Agency
does not believe that the grant of the requested relief in this
case would need to be submitted to the USEPA as a revision to the
SIP because Subpart TT has not yet been approved by USEPA as a
part of Illinois’ SIP for ozone.
(Agency Rec. par.
25.)
However,
if the USEPA approves Subpart TT as a SIP revision, the
Agency believes that the grant of the requested relief would be
approvable as a SIP revision.
(Agency Rec. par.
25.)
AGENCY RECOMMENDATION
• On June 8 and 10,
1992,
the Agency inspected Amoco’s
facility to discuss which Subpart applied to the sources listed
0137-0538
9
in Amoco’s petition.
(Agency Rec. par.
7.)
The Agency also
toured the areas of the plant where the sources are located to
investigate and verify the information in Amoco’s petition.
(Agency Rec.
par.
7.)
On June 17,
1992, Amoco met with the
Agency to discuss the applicability issue and informed the Agency
that it would be submitting an amended petition.
(Agency Rec.
par.
7.)
The Agency also reviewed Sverdrup’s review of the
various VON emission control options, the cost estimates for the
control equipment proposed in Amoco’s petition,
a summary of the
VON emission calculations, and highlights of the emission testing
used to determine emission rates from the sources.
(Agency Rec.
par.
8.)
The Agency agrees that Amoco will undergo an unreasonable
hardship if the Board does not grant the requested relief.
(Agency Rec. par.
28.)
Accordingly, the Agency recommends that
the Board grant relief subject to certain conditions.
(Agency
Rec.
par.
28.)
The Agency, however, takes issue with several of
the representatives made by Amoco in its petition.
First,
the
Agency states that Amoco has improperly taken credit for a large
reduction in emissions at the main oil/water separator when,
in
fact, Amoco initially installed covers on the separator in order
to comply with the 85 percent control limit specified in 35 Ill.
Adm
Code 215.141(a)
(previously known as Rule 205(c) (1)).
(Agency Rec. par.
10.)
In addition,
the Agency characterizes
Amoco’s uncontrolled emissions estimate of 2,166,000 lbs/yr from
the main oil/water separator as being unrealistically high in
light of the fact that the plant
is no longer a petroleum
refinery.
(Agency Rec. par.
10.)
Second, the Agency disagrees with Amoco’s statement that
Amoco’s interpretation of Subpart TT was a delaying factor for
installing controls on the
DAP
boration vessel.
(Agency Rec.
par.
11.)
The Agency notes that the organic material emission
standards and limitations for the Metro—East St. Louis area
(i.e., 35 Ill. Adm. Code 219) were promulgated in July 1991, grew
out of the FIP that was promulgated by the USEPA in June 1990,
and also apply to the Chicago ozone nonattainment area.4
(Agency
Rec. par.
11.)
The Agency argues that,
as a result, Amoco would
have had nine months to install and operate control equipment on
the DAP boration vessel if it had identified the vessel as
needing controls as of July 1991.
(Agency Rec. par.
11.)
The
Agency, however, recognizes that determining the actual emission
rates of those sources subject to Subpart TT was a time consuming
step that may have delayed installation of controls.
(Agency
Rec.
par.
11.)
More specifically, the Agency reasons that,
because Subpart TT includes an exemption for sources with actual
emissions less than 2.5 tons per year if total emissions from
4The regulations were adopted in R91—8 and became effective on
August
16, 1991.
0137-8539
10
those sources exceed 5.0 tons per year
(35 111.
Adin.
Code
219.980(c)), Amoco had to test emissions for
till sources subject
to Subpart TT in order to determine which sources to control.
(Agency Rec.
par.
11.)
Third,
the Agency disagrees with Amoco’s claim that there
will be further reduction of VOM emissions due to the
requirements of the SOCHI HON regulations.
(Agency Rec. par.
12.)
Specifically, the Agency notes that the USEPA is not
required to promulgate such regulations until November 15,
1992,
and that compliance with the regulations will not be required
until three years after that date
(i.e.,
November,
1995).
(See
Sections 112(e) (1) (A)
and 112(i) (3)
of the Clean Air Act,
42
U.S.C. Section 7401 ~
~q.
(1990)).
(Agency Rec. par.
12.)
Accordingly, the Agency argues that Amoco cannot claim that
compliance with the regulations will result in a reduction of
emissions when Amoco ceases operations one month after the
compliance date.
(Agency Rec. par.
12.)
Fourth,
the Agency believes that Amoco simplified and
misstated the status of the ozone nonattainment areas in Chicago
and Metro-East St.
Louis.
(Agency Rec.
par.
13.)
The Agency
notes that the USEPA designated the Chicago and the Metro-East
St. Louis areas as nonattaininent for ozone on November
6,
1991,
(40 C.F.R.
81) and that there have been violations of the ozone
standard in both areas since the initial designation.
(Agency
Rec. par.
13.)
The Agency further notes that the areas will
remain classified as nonattainment for ozone until
tJSEPA
promulgates a reclassification.
(Agency Rec. par.
13..)
Finally, the Agency disagrees with Amoco’s projected cost
per ton of VON emissions removed and annual operating costs.
(Agency Rec.
par.
14.)
The Agency argues that Amoco incorrectly
assumes that the control system’s economic life is
3 years given
that compliance was required by May 15,
1992,
and the variance is
being sought until December 31,
1992, when the plant ceases
operations.
(Agency Rec. pars.
14,
22.)
However, the Agency
agrees that,
even as corrected, the cost of compliance for the
DAP
process vessels, MAP phenate filters, MAP ZOP vessels,
MAP
phenate vessels, and MAP ZOP filters will be high and that
requiring controls on equipment scheduled for shutdown in 1995
would cause an unreasonable hardship.
(Agency Rec. par.
22.)
HARDSHIP
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 219.966 requires an overall reduction in
uncontrolled volatile organic material
(VON)
emissions of
81
percent or greater.
The USEPA estimates that,
in eight percent
of the areas in the country designated moderate non-attainment,
the cost of control equipment needed to meet an 81 percent
reduction level will be greater than $2,000 per ton of VON
reduced.
(Amended Pet. p.
2.)
The USEPA estimates that,
in all
0137-05~0
11
other moderate ozone non-attainment areas
(i.e.,
81 percent of
the country), the cost of control equipment needed to meet an 81
percent reduction level will be less than $2,000 per ton of VON
reduced.5
(Tr.
34; Amended Pet.
p.
2.)
Amoco estimates that the cost per ton of VON emissions
reduced at its Wood River facility would exceed $4,776 and,
in
some cases, would exceed $178,000.
(Tr.
32,
33,
34—35; Amended
Pet. Amended p.
B #11,
pp.
2,
12,
38, 40.)
More specifically,
Amoco provides the following breakdown of VOM emissions and
control costs:
PROCESS
UNCONTROLLED
ANNUALIZED
COSTS PER
DESCRIPTION
EMISSIONS,
COSTS OF VOM
TON OF VON
TONS/YR
CONTROLS
CONTROLLED
DAP
Process
4.62
$251,200
$54,372
vessels
(7
vessels)
MAP Phenate
4.62
$170,800
$36,970
Vessels
(8
vessels)
MAP ZOP
1.52
$90,400
$59,474
Vessels
(4
vessels)
MAP Phenate
1.18
$211,000
$178, 814
filters
(2
filters)
MAP ZOP
1.73
$90,400
$52,254
filter
(1
filter)
DAP Boration
10.51
$50,200
$4,776
Vessel
(1
vessel)
TOTALS
24.18
$864,000
(Tr.
32,
34—35; Amended Pet.
p.
10.)
Based on the above data,
Amoco argues that the cost of
installation of RACT type controls for VON reduction is
significantly greater
(10 to 100 times) than the costs listed in
5USEPA,
Ozone
Non-attainment
Analysis
—
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments of 1990,
E.H. Pechan,
Inc.
(September
1991).
0137-05k
12
the USEPA’s study.
(Tr.
33,
34; Amended Pet.
p.
2.)
Amoco adds
that the fact that the
DAP
process vessels,
NAP
phenate filters,
MAP
ZOP vessels, MAP phenate vessels, and the MAP ZOP filters
have only a two to three year operating life and are slated for
shutdown in 1995, draws into question the expenditure of two
million dollars on VON emissions controls.
(Tr.
15-16,
17,
19;
Amended Pet. Amended p. B #11,
pp.
12,
13.)
In addition to the above, Amoco asserts that the
installation of control equipment would require more than nine
months to engineer and install.
(Amended Pet. p.
38.)
More
specifically, Amoco asserts that compliance by the May 15,
1992
deadline set forth in 35
Ill.
Adin. Code 219.987 is not possible
when one considers the time needed to interpret the regulation,
develop a compliance design and evaluate the design under Amoco’s
hazardous operations
(HAZ-OP)
safety review policy, obtain a
construction permit,
obtain funding for the project, purchase and
install the required equipment, conduct system checks and
commence operations,
and train operators to run the control
equipment.
(Amended Pet.
p.
38.)
Finally, Amoco states that,
because the installation of VON
emission controls cannot be timely accomplished by the May 15,
1992 deadline, the only alternative to achieve compliance would
be to shut down all units needing Subpart TT controls.
(Amended
Pet.
pp.
39,
41.)
Such action would effectively shut down the
entire plant, would result in the loss of the majority of jobs at
the facility, and would impose an unreasonable hardship on the
Amoco’s 303 employees and on the Wood River community.
(Amended
Pet.
p.
39.)
BOARD DISCUSSION
The Board finds that immediate compliance with applicable
regulations would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship on
Amoco.
This conclusion is based upon considerations such as the
cost of compliance in light of the slated 1995 shutdown of
Amoco’s 22 sources and the time duration of the variance for the
DAP
boration vessel.
In addition, the Board notes that Amoco has
already spent a significant sum of money in its efforts to reduce
VON emissions.
The Board also notes that the data presented in
this case indicates that the grant of variance will not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment.
The Board notes, however, that Amoco has requested a
retroactive variance, commencing May 15,
1992.
The Board has
granted a limited number of retroactive variances.
(See
Department of the Air Force.
Scott air Force Base.
v.
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (October
1,
1992),
PCB 92-63;
QIi~
v.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(December 19,
1991),
PCB 90-227).
Althougn the Agency does not oppose a retroactive
variance in this case, the Agency disagrees with Amoco’s
0I37-O5~2
13
statement that Amoco’s interpretation of Subpart TT was a
delaying factor for installing controls.
(Agc~ncyRec. par.
11.)
The organic material emission standards and limitations for
the Metro-East St. Louis area (i.e.,
35 Ill. Adm. Code 219) were
promulgated in August 1991,
and grew out of the FIP that was
promulgated by the USEPA in June 1990.
Amoco has provided no
explanation, other than the argument that its interpretation of
Subpart TT was a delaying factor for installing controls,
as to
why it took over one year to file for variance relief.
Even if
Amoco’s interpretation of Subpart TT could somehow be construed
as a delaying factor in the installation of controls, Amoco has
provided no explanation as to why it waited until approximately
two weeks after the compliance date contained in the regulations
(i.e., May
15,
1992)
to file for variance relief.
Moreover, even
though Amoco thought that its sources were subject to Subpart RR,
the Board notes that Subpart RR itself contains a Nay 15,
1992
compliance date.
The Board ordinarily grants variances beginning 120 days
after the date of filing a variance petition.
Accordingly,
after considering the circumstances of this case,
the Board will
grant a variance beginning September 23,
1992,
which is 120 days
after Amoco filed its initial variance petition.
In all other
respects, the Board will grant relief consistent with the
Agency’s recommended conditions.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
Petitioners Amoco Chemical Company and Amoco Petroleum
Additives Company are granted a variance from 35
Ill.
Adm. Code
219.986 and 219.987, subject to the following conditions:
1.
This variance will become effective on September 23,
1992.
2.
This variance will expire on December 31,
1995.
3.
This variance applies to discharges from the DAP
process vessels, MAP phenate filter,
MAP
ZOP vessels,
MAP phenate vessels, and MAP ZOP filters located at
Petitioner’s Wood River, Illinois facility.
4.
Petitioner shall provide written notification to the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency of the
permanent shut down of any source at the subject
facility within ten
(10) days of the shutdown.
01 37-05t~3
14
5.
Within thirty
(30) days of the date of this order,
Petitioner shall provide written notification to the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency of the highest
daily throughput for each of the sources listed in
condition 3 above during the months of June through
September for the years 1989 through 1991.
6.
Petitioner shall operate the emissions sources listed
in condition
3 above such that no emission source shall
exceed the throughput submitted pursuant to condition
5
above.
7.
Petition shall submit a written report of the gallons
of each product produced at DAP-100,
DAP-400, MAP-lOO,
MAP—200(Phenates),
and MAP—200(Sulfurized Olefins) to
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency at the end
of each calendar year during the period of this
variance.
8.
Within thirty
(30) days of the date of this order,
Petitioner shall submit
a final written report of all
stack testing that was conducted to determine the
emission rates of the sources listed in condition
3
above to the Illinois environmental Protection Agency.
9.
Within twenty four (24) hours of its receipt of any
citizen complaints,
Petitioner shall provide
notification of such complaints to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency.
10.
Within seven
(7) days of its receipt of any citizen
complaints,
Petitioner shall provide notification of
any actions taken to eliminate and prevent future
complaints to the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency.
Petitioners Amoco Chemical Company and Amoco Petroleum
Additives Company are also granted a variance from 35
Ill.
Adin.
Code 219.986 and 219.987,
subject to the following conditions:
1.
This variance will become effective on September 23,
1992.
2.
This variance will expire on one of the following
dates:
a)
March 2,
1993, or
b)
upon verification of compliance through testing,
whichever occurs first.
3.
This variance applies to discharges from the DAP
01 37-O5~
15
boration vessel located at Petitioner’s Wood River,
Illinois facility.
4.
Within sixty
(60) days of the startup date of the new
control equipment on the DAP boration vessel,
Petitioner shall test for the volatile organic material
emissions from the control device.
5.
Petitioner shall have the emission test procedure
mentioned in condition
4 above approved by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency’s emission source test
specialist prior to testing.
6.
No later than thirty
(30) days prior to the expected
date of the test mentioned in condition 4 above and
five
(5) working days prior to the test, Petitioner
shall provide notification to the Illinois
environmental Protection Agency of the exact date,
time,
and place of the test.
Within forty-five days of the date of this order,
Petitioners shall execute and forward to
Ann
Zwick, Division of
Legal Counsel,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
P.O. Box
19276,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62794—9276,
a
Certificate of Acceptance and agreement to be bound to all terms
and conditions of the granted variance.
The 45-day period shall
be held in abeyance during any period that this matter is
appealed.
Failure to execute and forward the Certificate within
45-days renders this variance void and of no force and effect as
a shield against enforcement of rules from which this variance is
granted.
The form of Certificate is as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I
(We),
hereby accept and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions
of the order of the Pollution Control Board in PCB 92-78,
December
3,
1992.
Petitioners
By:
Authorized Agent
01 37-Q5145
16
Title
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1991,
ch.
111½ par.
1041, provides for appeal of final
Orders of the Board within 35 days.
The Rules of the Supreme
Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
(But see also
Castenada v.
Illinois Human Rights Commission
(1989),
132 Ill.2d
304,
547 N.E.2d 437).
I,
Dorothy N. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby cer~ify~thatthe abovç opinion and order was
adopted on the
~
~
day of
,~
~
,
1992,
by a
vote of
__________.
~//‘
~
?~
~
Dorothy M.7—~unn,Clerk
Illinois P~LlutionControl Board
0137 -05146
