ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 4, 1975
TEXACO, INC.,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 75—339
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
Respondent.
Mr. James P. Peytori, Attorney, appeared for the Petitioner;
Mr. John Palincsar, Attorney, appeared for the Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Young):
On August 28, 1975 Texaco, Inc. (Lockport Refinery) filed a
Petition for Variance with the Illinois Pollution Control Board
(Board)
.
Petitioner requested a variance from the requirements
of Rule 204(c)
(2)
and Rule 204(d) of Chapter 2: Air Pollution, of
the Board’s Rules and Regulations. PCB Regs., Ch. 2, Rules 204(c) (2),
204(d). Petitioner is seeking the variance for its Lockport
Refinery, for a period of 13-1/2 months, from August 28, 1975 to
October 10, 1976, pending the installation by Texaco of emission
control equipment to bring its sulfur dioxide emissions into
compliance.
Petitioner operates a petroleum refinery immediately adjacent
to the city of Lockport in Will County, Illinois, which processes
approximately 72,000 barrels of crude oil per calendar day. A
Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit Sour Water Stripper system is used
at the refinery. This system contacts sour water; that is, process
water containing hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, with steam
vaporizing
those materials. The vaporized hydrogen sulfide and ammonia are
now routed to a nearby charge heater for incinceration. At the
charge heater the hydrogen sulfide is converted by oxidation to
sulfur dioxide, which is then emitted from the heater stack. The
sulfur dioxide emissions resulting from the incineration of the
sour water stripper overhead gases cause the refinery heater to
exceed the allowable sulfur dioxide emission standard. Texaco
admits emission from its Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit preheater
of 2.63 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million BTU’s of actual heat
input. (Pet. p. 3.) This emission exceeds the allowable level
of 1.0 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million BTU’s as established
by Pollution Control Board Rule 204(d). While the Petition also
asks for a variance from Rule 204 (c) (2), Ch. 2, a variance from
this rule is not applicable, as this rule applies only to emission
sources burning liquid fuel exclusively.
19-
394
—2—
Petitioner proposes to correct the existing condition by the
installation of a system which would route gases with high sulfur
content through a Sulfur Recovery Unit. This system would convert
the hydrogen sulfide to elemental sulfur, rather than allowing
it to be emitted as sulfur dioxide. The Agency believes that this
control system proposed by the Petitioner, if properly designed
and operated, would bring the sour water stripper into compliance
with Rule 204(d). (Rec. p. 3.)
Texaco has demonstrated considerable good faith in its
attempt to achieve compliance with the sulfur dioxide standards.
Texaco had a management advisory study for problem identification
initiated by Air Resources, Inc. in March of 1972. The preliminary
results of this study caused Texaco to retain Brown and Root, Inc.
with regard to the sulfur problem and also to conduct engineering
studies on other projects to bring the Lockport Refinery into
compliance with applicable air and water regulations.
In June of 1973 Brown and Root, Inc. commenced work on six
compliance projects including the required work to bring the
Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit sour water stripper system into
compliance. Three projects for the control of hydrocarbons and
one project for the control of particulates required engineering.
Since these projects all had earlier compliance dates than the
sulfur dioxide control projects, these projects were given a
higher priority by Petitioner for completion. Petitioner’s efforts
in all of these compliance efforts have been acceptable to the Agency.
(Rec. p. 3.) Even though a higher priority was given to these
other projects, Petitioner has, nonetheless, made considerable
headway in the installation of the Sulfur Control System. The
engineering work for the system was completed December 14, 1974.
Petitioner submitted an Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Construction Permit Application on March 26, 1975. Orders for
equipment and materials were placed by June 15, 1975. Petitioner
is now waiting for delivery of the materials and equipment to
complete installation. Construction should be completed by
October 1, 1976, with October 10, 1976 fixed as the operational
date.
The question of determining whether an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship exists is determined by a balancing process,
that is, balancing the benefits of the Petitioner and the public
in granting the variance versus the harm to the public and the
Petitioner in denying the variance. See, Hayes Branch Drainage
District No. 4 of the Town of Tuscola v. EPA, PCB 71-356, -357,
3 PCB 613 (1972)
19- 395
—3—
Petitioner states that pending installation of the Sulfur
Recovery Control System, its only method of compliance would be
a shutdown of the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit with a resulting
curtailment in production. This would result in a substantial
loss in refined petroleum products for the area, as well as a
loss of employment.
The Agency’S 1974 Annual Air Quality Report indicates that
sulfur dioxide ambient air quality standards were not exceeded
either on a daily or annual basis in the Joliet-Lockport area.
The Agency’s Lockport bubblers indicated an annual average
of 0.013 parts per million and a daily high of 0.082 ppm for sulfur
dioxide. Similarly, none of the five bubblers in Joliet operated
by the Will County Public Health officials indicated either
annual or daily sulfur dioxide violations. (Ag. Rec. p. 3.)
Statistical analysis of actual monitored air quality data projects
that the Refinery contributes a maximum of 0.006 parts per million
(ppm) by volume on an annual average to background sulfur dioxide
levels. The contribution from the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit
charge heater constitutes less than 15 of the total plant sulfur
dioxide emissions. It should also be noted that there has been
a 20 reduction in plant sulfur dioxide emissions since the startup
of the Sulfur Recovery Unit in April, 1975. In view of the potential
severe hardship posed to the Petitioner and the community, as
weighed against the actual harm to the community and public,
Petitioner has carried its burden.
As discussed above, this Joliet-Lockport area meets the
national ambient air quality standards as required by Train v. NRDC,
43 tJ.S.L.W. 4467 (U. S. No. 73—1742, April 16, 1975). This
determination alone, however, does not automatically entitle
Petitioner to a variance. The other relevant factors set out
in the Act, our Rules, and our prior decisions must also be
considered. Since Petitioner has also met those requirements,
the variance can be granted if subject to the following conditions.
As required by Section 36 of the Environmental Protection
Act, a performance bond is required in any case in which additional
time is requested to bring Petitioner into compliance. Ill. Rev.
Stat., Ch. 111—1/2, Sec. 1036. A performance bond of $10,000.00
will be sufficient to assure compliance with our Regulations.
In addition, the grant of the variance is conditioned upon
a requirement that Petitioner continues to emit sulfur dioxide
at or below its current sulfur dioxide emission levels, and that
Petitioner make regular and proper reports to the Agency
so
that
Petitioner remains on the established schedule; and lastly, a
standard certificate of acceptance is included.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board in this matter.
19-396
—4—
ORDER
IT IS THE
ORDER
OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD that Petitioner
Texaco, Inc. be granted a Variance from the sulfur dioxide standards
of Rule 204(d), for its Lockport Refinery’s Fluid Catalytic Cracking
Unit preheater, for the period from August 28, 1975 to October 10,
1976, subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner shall adhere to the compliance
schedule enumerated on page 5 of the Petition for
Variance.
2. Petitioner shall post a Ten Thousand
Dollar ($10,000.00) 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
3. Petitioner shall make detailed,
documented progress reports to the Agency, at
the above address, on the first business day
of each quarter until final compliance has been
achieved.
4. Emissions from the Fluid Catalytic
Cracking Unit preheater shall not exceed the
present level of 2.63 pounds of su1f~-dioxide
per million BTtJ’s of actual heat inp~.
5. Within 30 days of the date of the
adoption of this Order Petitioner, Texaco, Inc.,
shall complete and submit to the Environmental
Protection Agency, at the above address, the
following certification:
19
-
397
—5—
I, (We),
—
having read
the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
in case No. PCB 75-339, understand and accept said
Order, realizing that such acceptance renders all
terms and conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
SIGNED
TITLE
DATE
IT IS THE FURTHER ORDER OF THE BOARD that the portion
of the Variance Petition requesting relief from Rule 204(c) (2)
be dismissed.
Mr. Dumelle dissented.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois PollutiQn
Control Board, hereby certify he above Opinion and Order were
adopted on the
~J~’
day of
____
,
1975 by a vote of
~
Illinois Pollution ontrol Board
19
-
398