ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June 20, 1974
    AMOCO
    OIL CO.
    PETITIONER
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 74—120
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    RESPONDENT
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Marder)
    This case comes to the Board on Petition of Amoco Oil Co. for
    extension of a variance granted by the Board in PCB 73-398 (opin-
    ion issued December 20, 1973),
    filed April
    1,
    1974, from Rule
    205
    (g)
    of Chapter
    2 of the Board~sRules and Regulations,
    until Dec-
    ember
    31,
    1974.
    The Agency filed its recommendation in this matter June
    10, 1974,
    suggesting this extension be granted only until October 31,
    1974.
    No hearing was held.
    This case stems from a variance granted by the Board in PCB 73-
    398.
    For a detailed discussion on the proáess and control program
    therein considered,
    the reader is advised to refer to our December
    20, 1973,
    decision.
    Petitioner
    is requesting variance from Rule 205
    (g) of Chapter 2
    of the Board’s Rules and Regulations
    for its catalytic reforming
    unit.
    Emissions from this unit are hydrocarbons, and are to be controlled
    by
    the use of
    a smokeless flare.
    Amoco
    is requesting this extension because of alleged equipment
    delivery delays.
    Amoco alleges that if this variance is not granted,
    the only other method of control available would be to shut down the
    unit.
    At the time of the Petitioner~sfiling Amoco expected to receive
    the flare equipment in mid-April,
    1974.
    At the earliest, this would
    bring construction to completion in late July,
    1974.
    Amoco does not
    believe this time frame is adequate, and so
    is asking the variance
    be
    granted until December 31, 1974
    (Pet.
    Pg.
    2)
    in
    order to avoid
    repeat-
    ed
    variance petitions.
    12
    --
    591
    —2—
    Amoco alleges that in November 1973 it reduced,continuous hydrocar-
    bon emissions from its blowdown stack from 105 lbs/hr to 17.5 lbs/hr
    (Pet.
    Pg. 2).
    Amoco has submitted
    (Exhibit A attached to Petition)
    a survey of
    hydrocarbon emissions from its Wood River Refinery taken during Dec-
    ember l9~’and January 1973.
    Amoco alleges that the analysis showed
    at that ti.
    hat the emissions from the refinery had minimal impact
    (Pet.
    P.
    3).
    Since the time of the survey Amoco alleges it has reduced emissions
    from the unit in question by about 88 lbs/hr
    (Pet.
    P.
    3).
    The Agency states that non—methane hydrocarbon concentrations
    in
    the area of the refinery were 2.02 ppm during the test period last
    year, while the primary ambient air quality standard is
    0.24 ppm (Agen-
    cy Rec.
    P.
    4)
    .
    There are numerous other sources of hydrocarbon emiss-
    ions
    in the area
    (Agency Rec.
    P.
    4).
    The Agency objects to the length of the requested variance.
    They
    state that Petitioner’s supplier indicates construction of the proposed
    equipment can be completed by September 1, 1974
    (Agency Rec.
    P.
    4).
    The Board finds that because of the already extensive slippage in
    the schedule of compliance to date,
    that it is reasonable to allow
    Amoco the extra two months requested to complete their compliance pro-
    gram, subject to the condition that they install equipment as received
    and put it into operation as soon as possible.
    Hardship in this matter was determined in the previous opinion
    (PCB 73-398), but as
    a general review, the Board found that failure to
    grant the variance would necessitate shutting down the unit,
    and that
    this would cause
    a loss of
    8000 to 9000 ~barre1s of reformate per day.
    The Board finds that Amoco Oil Co. has met its burden of proof for
    a variance under Sec.
    35 of the Environmental Protection Act.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
    law of the Board.
    ORDER
    IT
    IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Petitioner,
    Amoco Oil Co.,
    is granted variance from Rule 205
    (g)
    of Chapter 2
    of the Board’s Rules and Regulations in order to operate its catalytic
    reforming unit located at its Wood River, Illinois, Refinery, until
    December 31,
    1974,
    or upon completion of the installation of the poll-
    ution control equipment, whichever period of time is shorter, subject
    to the following conditions:
    1.
    As Petitioner receives equipment,
    it shall be installed
    and put into operation as soon as possible.
    12
    —
    592
    —3—
    2.
    Petitioner shall send to the Agency at the address
    below monthly progress reports as to the completion
    of the project.
    Environmental Protection Agency
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield,
    Illinois 62706
    3.
    Petitioner shall notify the Agency when all equipment
    is installed.
    4.
    Petitioner shall apply for all construction and opera-
    ting permits required.
    5.
    Petitioner shall maintain in effect the performance
    bond as ordered in PCB 73-397
    —
    401 to guarantee in-
    stallation of equipment as ordered.
    I, Christan L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by the
    Board
    on
    the~~*\
    day of
    ~
    1974, by a vote of
    ____
    to
    __
    ii
    12
    —
    593

    Back to top