ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL 

BO~kRD

January 9 1975

MARATHON 

OIL COMPANY,

Petitioner,

)

PCB 74—147

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent

MR. C. RICHARD TURNBOW, appeared on behalf of Petitioner;

MR. JOHN PALINCSAR, appeared on behalf of the Environmental

Protection Agency;

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by 

Mr. Dumelle).:

Marathon Oil Company (Petitioner) filed a petition for

~variance on April 25, 1974. Pursuant to a Board issued

‘~rnore

information order~, Petitioner filed an amended variance

petition on June 3, 1974 and a supplement to the amended

variance petition on August 6, 1974, The Agency filed a

recommendation to deny the variance on July 2, 1974. No

hearing was held on the petition.

Petitioner owns and operates an oil refinery located

adjacent to the City of Robinson. Petitioner seeks a variance

from Rule 206(c) of the Air Pollution Regulations. Petitioner

currently emits approximately 130,000 ppm of carbon monoxide

(CO) 

Rule 206 (c) sets a maximum emission level of 200 ppm

of CO, which became effective December 3.1, 1973. Petitioner

proposes to achieve compliance by installing a CO boiler to

convert the CO to carbon dioxide. The CO boiler will produce

approximately 250,000 pounds of 600 pound steam per hour.

Petitioner alleges that the cost of the CO boiler will be

approximately $4,000,000. Petitioner states that the delivery

schedule for the equipment projects initial receipt of

certain components in September of 1974 with completion of

the entire system in December of 1975. Petitioner projects

that testing of the unit should be completed by January 15,

1976, with full operation scheduled to begin at that time.

The Agency agrees that the proposed CO boiler, if

properly designed and operated, will achieve compliance with

Rule 206 (c). The Agency further agrees that the cost of the

compliance program w~11he approximately ~4,000,000. In

addition, the Agency states that Petitioner~s time schedule

for complaince is realistic. Both Petitioner and the Agency

agree that Petitioner’s emission of CO does not cause a

violation of Federal primary ambient air quality standards

for CO.

15—

169

Petitioner discharges thrcu~htwo i84H~t, stacks which

are located 2,000 feet east

of the closest, 

residence

in

Robinson.

The Board finds that because of the combined effects of

Petitionerts stacks,

the relatively good air quality of

Crawford County and the fact that no similar CO source

exists approximate to the Robinson refinery, khat Petitioner

emission of 

CO does. not

constitute an iimr~ediatehealth

hazard.

The Agency recoimnends a denial of the requested variance,

in

the alternative

a grant of a variance from Rule 103(b) (6)

of the Air Pollution Regulations, which would allow

Petitioner

to obtain an operating permit while leaving Petitioner open

to a potential enforcement complaint for violation of the

substantive Rule 206 (c).

The Agency bases its recommendation

on the alleged unjustifiable

delay of Petitioner in achieving

compliance.

Petitionerts

supplement to the amended petition for

variance 

attempted to provide documentation to justify the

delay. Petitioner states that 121 documents indicate by

their content that a continuous and conscientious 

effort was

being made by Petitioner to ascertain a permanent and guaranteed

method of meeting CO emission requirements of the State of

Illinois for its cat cracker, while at the same time planning

major revisions to the unit 

——

the revisions being important

steps in the overall refinery’s long-range capability to

product unleaded gasolinet1. Petitioner alleges 

that

denial

of the variance request would impose an arbitrary and

unreasonable hardship because it would have to curtail the

operations at the remainder of its Robinson refine.ry which

could result in a decision to shut down the entire plant.

Petitioner alleges that this would cause a lay-off and a

loss of the products produced at the refinery.

The Board is very sympathetic with the Agency’s position

in this case. Petitioner should have filed for a variancce on

October 1, 1973 instead of waiting until April 25, 1974, However,

little would  be gained by denying this variance. Petitioner

is proceeding with a $4,000,000 control program. As previously

stated, Petitioner~s discharge does not produce an immediate

health hazard. The Board therefore finds that Petitioner .is

entitled to a variance from Rule 206(c) for one year from the

date of this Order. This will leave Petitioner subject to

possible enforcement actions for any past violations, Because

of the two year delay, the

~oard finds 

that a Performance

Bond is

required.

This Opinion constitutes

the Board~ findIngs of 

fact

and conclusions of law.

Mr,

Henes 

disseubs.

15—170

ORDBR

The Board hereby grants Petitioner a yariance from

Rule

206(c) of the Air Pollution Regulations until January 9, 1976

subject to the following

conditions:

Petitioner shall apply for all necessary construction

and operating permits.

2.  Petitioner shall subject quarterly progress reports

on the construction of the carbon monoxide boiler to the Agency

at the following address: Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency, Program Control Coordinator, 2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield, Illinois 62706.

3.  Petitioner shall post a Performance Bond, in a

form

satisfactory to the Agency, in 

the amount of

One

Hundred Thousand Dollars ($l00,00O,~. Said Performance

Bond

shall be posted with the Agency at the following address:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Fiscal Services

Section, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were

adopted on the ~~day  of January, 1975 by a vote of 

1/...,

Christan L. Mo fet 

Cle

Illinois Pollution Control Board

—

171