ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March
19,
1981
GETTY SYNTHETIC FUELS,
INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 80—171
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
MR. LOUIS M.
RUNDIO, JR., McDERMOTT, WILL AND EMERY, APPEARF~DOt’T
BEHALF OF PETITIONER.
MR.
PETER
E.
ORLINSKY
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
I.
Goodman):
On September 24,
1980 Getty Synthetic
Fuels,
Inc.
(Getty)
filed a permit appeal before the Board alleging that the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) had erred in including
certain provisions in Getty’s operating permit.
Hearing was he1~
in this matter on December 12,
1980; there was no testimony
by the public at the hearing and the Board has received no written
public comment.
At the hearing the Agency moved to dismiss
the
appeal.
The
motion to dismiss
is hereby denied.
Although there is considerable procedural history herein,
the
major issue involved is the characterization of Getty’s methane
recovery facility located at the site of a landfill
in Cook County,
Illinois.
This facility includes a landfill gas gathering system
and a processing plant.
The purpose
of the facility is
to gather
the gas that naturally forms when
solid waste in a landfill
decomposes and to extract the relatively high percentage of methane
contained therein.
The methane thus produced is a high-Btu pipe-
line quality gas suitable for industrial
and residential use.
During the recovery of the methane from the landfill gas certain
other constituents are separated out,
including certain hydrocarbons~
heavier
in molecular weight than is methane, termed “heavy hydrocar-
bons”.
Approximately 220 pounds of heavy hydrocarbons are sepa-
rated from the gas each hour during the recovery process.
Approximately 90
of the 220 pounds per hour of heavy hydro-
carbons produced are removed through a condensation process.
The
residual heavy hydrocarbons that remain after condensation, emitt~i
at a rate of about 20 pounds per hour, are then subjected to
a process known
as “gas stripping” which reduces the residual
heavy hydrocarbon emissions to a rate of
7 pounds per hour.
41—97
In issuing the permit to Getty,
the Agency characterized the
facility as
a petrochemical manufacturing process, based upon cer-
tain constituents of the heavy hydrocarbons separated from the gas
stream during the process
(Tr.70,77).
The Agency therefore con-
siders that Getty is subject to Rule 205(g)(1)(C)
of chapter
2
and,
in addition, Rule 205(f)
since the process
is using organic materi.~1~.
Rule 205(g)(1)(C) addresses emissions from petrochemical manufac~-
turing processes and Rule 205(f)
is designed to apply to sources
not otherwise specifically addressed under the hydrocarbon rule.
The limitations of both rules
for the purposes of Getty’s
situatior~
are identical:
no more than
8 pounds
of emission per hour or,
in the alternative,
an 85
reduction of all uncontrolled emissions.
On the other hand, Getty argues that the methane recovery operation
is not a petrochemical manufacturing process hut more closely
resembles an air pollution control facility controlling emissions
from a separate source,
namely the landfill.
Getty therefore
argues that the correct rule to apply is Rule 205(f),
and that
the correct source is the landfill.
The first issue is whether Getty’s facility is
a petrochemical
manufacturing process and thus subject to Rule 205(g)(1).
If
it
is not a petrochemical manufacturing process, a further issue is
whether the emission subject to Rule 205(f)
is that being discharge~i
by the landfill, as Getty argues,
or that being discharged from
the recovery plant itself, as argued by the Agency.
The recovery facility is a
new
type of facility and does not
clearly fit into any of the specific categories of the hydrocarbon
rule.
Most certainly, this was not the sort of operation or
facility envisioned by the Board when
it
promulgated Rule 205(g)(i)~
which governs petrochemical manufacturing processes.
The mere
presence of a
small amount of nonmethane hydrocarbons, even if
they can be described as ultimate feed stocks derived from petroleur’i,
does not alone determine the operation to be
a petrochemical process.
The Board finds that Getty~smethane recovery operation is not ~
petrochemical process subject to Rule 205(g)(1).
Both parties contend,
and the Board agrees, that Rule 205(f)
contains the limitations with
which Getty’s facility must
comply.
The issue remaining is whether Gettys facility
is an air pollution
control device controlling emissions from a source (the landfill),
or whether the facility itself
is the source and the gas stripping
operation the pollution control device.
The decision will determine
what emissions are to be the baseline for the determination of an
85
reduction,
the 220 pounds per hour from the landfill or the
20
pounds per hour from the recovery operation.
The Board is not
persuaded by Getty’s argument that the recovery operation is
a
pollution control device.
If Getty’s
contention is true then it
must be prepared to take responsibility for all emissions from the
landfill.
Getty does not own the landfill and there is no evidencu
that it exercises such degree of control over the landfill as to
have
a duty to accept responsibility for its environmental regu-
latory compliance.
The avowed purpose of the facility is
41—98
not to stop the emission of pollutants
into the air from the
landfill, but rather to
“...
make a profit.”
(Tr.23).
Getty’s
facility is
“...
of a type capable of emitting specified air
contaminants to the atmosphere”,
the definition of an emission
source under Rule 101.
The Board finds that Getty’s facility is
an emission source subject to Rule 205(f)
of Chapter
2.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
1.
This matter is remanded to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency for further action consistent with the Opinion
herein.
2.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s motion
at hearing for dismissal is denied.
Dr. Satchell concurred.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christari L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
were adopted on the
/‘f
~
day of
~
-,
1981 by a vote
of
~
.
Christan
L. Moff~t~,Clerk
Illinois Polluti~Control Board
41—99