ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May

8,

1975

TEXACO,

INC.

Petitioner,

vs.

)

PCB 75—59

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Henss):

Texaco,

Inc.

seeks variance from Section 9(a)

(air pollution)

and Section

9(b)

(permits)

of the Environmental Protection Act

and Rules

102

(air pollution),

103 (b) (2)

(permits)

,

104 (a)

(compliance programs) and 205(j) (2)

(compliance dates)

of the Air

Pollution Control Regulations.

In addition, Texaco requests

extension of

a variance which had previously been granted from

Rule 205 (a) (storage of organic material).

In PCB 73—54

the Board

allowed variance from Rule

205(a) during installation of control

equipment on

31 volatile organic storage tanks.

Petitioner owns and operates a petroleum refinery contiguous

to the City of Lockport in Will County.

Stationary storage tanks

are used to store volatile organic materials.

Texaco is equipping

its storage tanks with floating roofs pursuant to a compliance

schedule which was approved in PCB 73-54.

By operating its

refinery with reduced storage capacities, Texaco has been able

to accelerate its installation schedule.

As the project now

stands, only five storage tanks will not be in compliance with the

Regulations by December 31,

1975.

These five will all be in

compliance by September

1,

1976.

Petitioner therefore requests a

one year variance, the maximum allowable under State law.

On April

16,

1975,

after this matter had been submitted to

us for decision, the

U.

S.

Supreme Court handed down its opinion

in Train, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency, et al vs.

Natural Resources Defense Council

(No.

73—1742).

In brief,

the

U.

S. Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act authorizes states

to grant variances from implementation plan requirements

if such

variances do not interfere with attainment or maintenance of

16

—603

---

—2—

national ambient air quality standards.

The Court said:

“The Act gives the Agency no authority to question

the wisdom of a state’s choices of emission

limitations if they are part of

a plan which

satisfies the standards of Section 110(a) (2), and

the Agency may devise and promulgate

a specific

plan of its own only if

a state fails to submit

an implementation plan which satisfies those

standards.

Sec.

110(c).

Thus,

so long as the

ultimate effect of a state~schoice of emission

limitations is compliance with the national

standards for ambient air, the state is

at liberty

to adopt whatever mix of emission limitations it

deems best suited to its particular situation”.

The Court’s ruling technically upholds only the specific

Georgia provision at issue, which would permit the State of

Georgia to grant such variances before July

1,

1975,

the date

Georgia

is required to attain the ambient air standards.

How-

ever the Supreme Court said:

“The Agency is candid in admitting that should we

base our decision on its interpretation of

Section 110 (a) (3), the decision would support the

approval of implementation plans which provide

for variances effective after the attainment date.”

Illinois is required to attain the ambient air standards by

July 31, 1975, but the Illinois Implementation Plan provides for

the grant of variances

in accordance with the provisions of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act.

Therefore,

this Board

can grant individual variances beyond July

31, 1975 if the

variances do not interfere with the attainment and subsequent

maintenance of national ambient air quality standards.

The record in the instant case is not sufficient for the

allowance of Texaco’s variance petition.

There are no data

bearing on the quality of the ambient air which is affected by

Petitioner’s emissions;

there

is no statement or testimony in the

record indicating whether the grant of the variances would inter-

fere with attainment or maintenance of national ambient air

quality standards.

Therefore,

the Board must dismiss the

petition without prejudice.

If Texaco chooses to submit a new petition for variance such

petition must address

the air quality issue

as the Board will be

interested in determining whether the variance is allowable under

the recent U.

S. Supreme Court decision.

16

—

604

---

—3—

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and con-

clusions of law of the Illinois Pollution Control Board.

ORDER

It is ordered that the variance petition of Texaco,

Inc.

be dismissed without prejudice.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

certify

the

above

Opinion

and

Orde

were

adopted

on

the

________day

of

May,

1975

by

a

vote

of

cD

Christan L. Moffet~,/D~erk

Illinois Pollution ~‘trol

Board