ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February
10,
1983
GETTY SYNTHETIC FUELS,
INC.,
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB 81—171
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
LOUIS M.
RUNDIO, JR., McDERMOTT, WILL
AND EMERY, APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF PETITIONER;
WILLIAM
J. BARZANO,
JR.,
ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED
ON
BEHALF ON RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
I.
G.
Goodman):
This matter is before the Board upon
the October 30,
1981
petition of Getty Synthetic Fuels,
Inc.,
(Getty) for variance
from Rules
103 and 205(f)
of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution in con-
nection
with the construction and
operation of a methane recovery
facility
located in Cook
County,
Illinois.
Getty amended its
petition
on January
5,
1982 and again on March 24,
1982.
Hearings
were held
in this matter on
July
16 and November 30,
1982;
no
citizens
appeared at the
hearings and the Board has received no
public comment
in this matter,
Getty
operates a facility
at the C.I.D.
Landfill, Calumet
City,
Illinois,
which collects
naturally produced landfill gas,
separating
the methane portions
for subsequent sale to a pipeline
company.
The technology
involved in the process
is relatively
new and Getty~sfacility
is the first in the State of Illinois
to utilize
the
process.
In a prior Board proceeding concerning
this facility,
the
Board held that hydrocarbon emissions from
Gettyts
facility are
subject to the limitations of Rule 205(f)
of Chapter
2.
Getty Synthetic Fuels,
Inc.
v.
IEPA, PCB 80—171
(March
19,
1981), affirmed,
Illinois Appellate Court,
First Divi-
sion,
81—1071
(January 29,
1982).
Rule 205(f)
limits hydrocarbon emissions to
8 lbs/hr.
Getty’s
facility is presently
emitting heavy hydrocarbons at a
rate of
approximately
44 lbs/hr.
Getty’s failure to comply with
the hydrocarbon emission rule
is basically caused by the limited
experience associated with this technology.
The original facility
design was based upon a successful operation in California hut
51-117
2
conditions in Illinois
required the
installation of a different
process.
Getty now requests variance in order to allow a new gas
stripping column and reclaiming
system to be installed and tested.
In
its Recommendation,
the
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency) states
that it
believes Getty’s program for
achieving compliance is reasonable and argues that denial of
request for variance would not
be
in the best interests of
the
state since the facility will
convert otherwise wasted landfill
gas into usable
fuel.
In
addition,
the Agency points out that
design deficiencies can be
expected when new technology is inves-
tigated
and that the
hydrocarbons
emitted from Getty’s process
would
normally
be emitted from
the landfill itself.
Getty’s
proposed compliance plan also
anticipates an interim emission
reduction and the episode
action
plan provides sufficient safe-
guards
during per~odsof
high
ozone conctration.
The facility
is located in
an industrial
area,
the clàsest residence being
approximately one mile away.
The Agency has received no com-
plaints
regarding the facility
and Agency personnel have not
found
any odor problems
The Agency notes that
the facility
is located in an area
which has been classified non—attainment for ozone.
Getty’s
variance,
if
granted, would aextend past July 1,
1979 and would
therefore have to be submitted
to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency
(USEPA)
as revision
to the State of Illinois
Implementation Plan
(SIP),
The
Agency is of the opinion that the
proposed variance
is
approvable
as
a SIP revision and states that
it intends to submit
it
as a
revision
if variance is granted.
The Agency recommends that
variance
be granted from Rule 205(f)
of Chapter
2
until March
31,
1983
subject to certain conditions.
It further recommends that variance from Rule 103(a) and 103(b)
be denied as unnecessary
since a
variance from 205(f)
of Chapter
2 will
allow the Agency to issue the
required permits.
On~June
2,
1982 Getty filed
its
objections to the recommenda-
tion pointing out certain
disagreements with the Agency’s position
and
statement of the facts.
At the
hearing the parties reported
that they had
discussed their differences, that Getty had modified
its
compliance plan,
and
that the Agency had found the modified
plan
acceptable.
The Agency entered the modified plan as Exhibit
A
herein,
and amended its recommendation,
filed on May 20,
1982,
to
incorporate
the document.
On October
1,
1982,
the
Agency filed a Supplemental Recom-
mendation in which it
recanted
its previous position with respect
to
the return of liquid by~products of
the process to the landfill
by
Getty~
The Agency feels
that the
placement of ignitable waste
into a landfill is prohibited by Section 721.121 of the Board’s
Hazardous Waste Operating Requirements,
35 111. Mm.
Code,
Part 721.
On October
12,
1982, Getty filed
an objection to the Supplemental
Recommendation and
a
Motion
for
Additional Hearing to consider th~
heretofore agreed issue.
On October
14, 1982,
the Board granted
51-118
3
Getty’s motion,
limiting the hearing
to the single
issue of the
disposal of the liquid by—product.
At the November 30,
1982
hearing the parties filed an Exhibit
“A” which the Board inter-
prets as an amendment to the existing Exhibit
A,
supra.
This
amendment addresses the Agency’s concern with respect to the
liquid by-products and appears to settle that issue.
The proposed compliance plan, as contained in paragraphs
A through
F of the Agency~s
recommendation and as modified by
Exhibit A and the amendment, requires
a reporting schedule by
Getty to the Agency, that Getty obtain all required permits,
a
contingency plan in the event Getty fails to meet the required
emission rate,
a
stack testing schedule with conditions,
and a
program for
disposition of the hydrocarbon by—product.
Although
this compliance schedule is somewhat uncertain due to the problems
inherent with the development of a new technology,
the Board
finds
that it adequately protects the environment.
The Board therefore
finds that it would be an
arbitrary and unreasonable hardship to
deny the proposed variance considering both the hardship to Getty
and the potential benefit to the state
if Getty’s facility is
successful.
In addition, the
potential harm to the environment
appears minimal and the compliance plan should thwart any signi-
ficant excursions.
The Board shall therefore grant variance
from Rule 205(f) of Chapter
2 until October
1,
1983 under certain
conditions.
By October
1,
1983 Getty will have either achieved
compliance or will
have
determined an alternate compliance pro-
gram.
The Board
will
deny variance from Rule 103(a)
and 103(b)
of Chapter
2
as unnecessary.
Considering the uncertainty of
so’ne
of the provisions of the
compliance program, the Board shall
retain jurisdiction in order to determine any disagreements
between the parties.
This Opinion constitutes
the findings of fact and conclusions
of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
1.
Getty
Synthetic Fuels,
Inc.
is hereby granted variance
from Rule 205(f)
of Chapter 2:
Air Pollution for its
facility at the C.I.D.
Landfill
in Calumet City,
Illinois
until October
1, 1983 subject to the conditions contained
in paragraphs A
—
E of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency’s Recommendation filed May 20,
1982 as modified by
Exhibit A filed July
19,
1982 and the amendment filed
November 30,
1982,
all of which documents are hereby
incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
2.
Variance from Rules 103(a) and 103(b)
of Chapter
2:
Air
Pollution is denied.
3.
Within forty~~’fivedays of the date of this Order,
Petitioner
shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental
51-119
4
Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield,
Illinois
62706,
a Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement to be bound
to all terms and conditions
of this variance.
This forty-
five day period shall be held in abeyance for any period
this matter is being appealed.
The form of the certificate
shall
be as follows:
CERTIFICATE
I,
(We),
______________________________,
having
read the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in
PCB 81—171, dated _____________________________________
understand and accept the said Order,
realizing that such
acceptance renders all terms and conditions thereto binding
and enforceable,
Petitioner
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
4.
The Board
shall
retain jurisdiction in this matter.
IT IS
SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L,
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
hereby
ç~ertifythat the above Opinion and Order
was adopted on (the
~
day of
___
_____
,
1983
by a vote of
~
____
Christan
L.
Moffe’i(t6 Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
51-120