ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 21,

1974

FS SERVICES, INC.

KINGSTON MINES TERMINAL

PETITIONER

v.

)

PCB 73—518

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

•)

RESPONDENT

EVEN

A.

STR7~WN, ATTORNEY,

in

behalf

of

FS

SERVICES,

INC.

MICHAEL GINSBERG, ATTORNEY,

in

behalf

of

the

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(By Mr. Marder)

This

case comes to the Board on the petition of FS Services,

Inc.,

for a variance from Chapter

2, Rule 205

(a)

of the Board’s Regulations,

filed December 10,

1973,

for its Kingston Mines Terminal.

No hearing

was held.

The Environmental Protection Agency recommends the variance

be granted.

FS Services,

Inc.,

is a regional cooperative providing 140 member

companies throughout Illinois,

Iowa,

and

Wisconsin with wholesale manu-

facturing, purchasing,

supplies, and services.

FS is owned by the 140

companies it sells to, which are local farm cooperatives.

FS Services,

Inc., owns and operates three petroleum terminals in

Illinois.

They are located in Albany, Norris City, and Kingston Mines.

These

facilities supply gasoline and middle distillates to its member

companies, who in turn resell the products

at retail to local farmers.

The facility has seven stationary storage tanks, all with a capacity

in excess of 40,000 gallons.

Only one of these tanks complies with

Rule 205

(a), which tank has a floating roof.

As of December 31,

1973,

Rule 205

(a) made it

a violation to store

more than 40,000 gallons of volatile organic materials in

a stationary

storage tank,

unless:

11 —341

---

—2—

1)

The

tank

has

a

pressure

capable of

withstanding

the

vapor

pressure

of

such

materials,

so

as

to

prevent

vapor

or

gas

loss

to

the

atmosphere

at

all times;

2)

Is equipped

with

a

floating roof which rests

on

the vola-

tile organic material and is equipped with

proper

seals

to

prevent escape of vapor or gas

to the atmosphere;

3)

The tank must have

a vapor recovery system consisting

of:

A vapor gathering system capahie of collecting 85

or

more of the uncontrolled volatile organic material

that would be

othe~ise

emstted

to

the

atmosphere, and

a vapor disposal system capable of processing such

vola-

tile organic material so

as to prevent their emission

to the atmosphere.

4)

The tank is an existing

cone

roof

tank

used

exclusively for

the storage of Illinois crude

oil,

subject

to certain con-

ditions.

At

the

facility

in question, six

of

cheir

storage

tanks

do

not con-

form

with

this

rule.

Petitioner

alleges

that

the

hydror;libaw

emiss ions

for

the

six tanks

will

be

acprox.imately

66

lbs

p

3:.

The

bgency in its

recoin—

mendat.ion

calculates

that

the

•c.unissi•on

wil I

be

77~7l

lbs/hr

(Agency

Rec,

P.

3).

The

Agency

further

states

that

due

to

assumptions

that

can

be

used

in

the

calculation,

the

difference

is

not

unreasonable.

During

the

corporate

year

1972li3,

the

asoline

throughput

at the fac-

ility

was

76,200,000

galions~

The Petitioner alleges tli

it.

)t~

O:cOIfle

aware

that compliance

with Rule

205

(a)

would be required on December

31,

1973,

until March

27,

1973,

at which time Petitioner retained Procon,

Inc.,

as consult-

ants for the proposed

emission

control

On

June

1,

1973, the

Petitioner’s

board

of

directors

authorized

$177,000 for a vapor recovery system.

Preliminary

design and engineer-

ing are complete.

Petitioner’s proposed schedule for completion of the recovery system

is

as

follows:

Application

for

construction permit

Dec.

30,

1973

Order

of vapor recovery unit

Jan.

15, 1974

Advertise for bids

Feb.

1,

1974

Award contract and begin construction

March

1,

1974

Complete schedule for modification of

June

15, 1974

six tanks

installation and assembly of vapor re-

August 2,

1974

covery

unit

Final

completion and shakedown

September

15,

1974

11

—342

---

—3—

Petitioner alleges

a 150 day lead time from the time of ordering

the vapor recovery unit and delivery.

During the delivery time, Pet-

itioner will be doing work preliminary to the installation of the vapor

recovery

unit

including:

1)

Modification of the six tanks

2)

Construction of the vapor gathering manifold

3)

The necessary connections between the manifold and

the

tanks.

The

tank

modification

work will take two weeks per tank, with one

tank

out

of service at

a time.

When.the vapor recovery system is de-

livered,

all

work

preliminary

to its installation will be complete.

The

Agency

feels

the

above

compliance

plan

is

reasonable

and

will

bring

the facility into compliance with the rule.

Petitioner alleges, and the Agency does not rebut, that the emissions

nificant adverse effect on the public for the following reasons:

1)

The hydrocarbon emissions have

a low photochemical

reactivity,

and

nificantly

2)

There will be no objectionable odor nuisance.

3)

There

is

not

a large concentration

of

storage

tanks

in

the

area

that

are

hydrocarbon

emitters,

leading

to the conclusion that ambient air quality will have

low hydrocarbons.

Should

Petitioner

be

denied

this

variance,

it

could

not

cover

its

commitment to supply fuel

to

its customers from its other facilities.

This

would cause a loss not only to Petitioner, but

also to those sup-

plied

by him, who would not be able to get a sure supp.y

of gasoline.

The Board takes notice that a stable supply of fuel is necessary to

keep

our

agricultural

output

sufficient to meet our needs.

Although the Board feels that the delay and resultant hardship are

clearly self-imposed, Petitioner’s

activities

since March

27,

1973,

litigate the circumstances considerably.

It is clearly the responsi-

bility of Petitioner

to keep abreast of regulations in its field,

and

a lack of knowledge thereof is not qrounds for protection.

However,

in the instant case, the Board finds

that the hardship inflicted on

Petitioner

and

the

ultimate

consumer

would

be such that

a variance

is warranted.

The Board further finds that the

environmental impact of Petitioner~s

continued operation for the period of its compliance plan is not signif-

icant enough to move the Board to deny the Petition.

Petitioner has shown good faith in taking on this compliance program

which we find

is a reasonable one.

The Agency recommended a grant of a variance only until September 15,

11—343

---

—4—

1974.

Petitioner requested a variance for one year,

or the time to com-

plete the work on the facility.

The Board finds nothing on the record

to indicate that the construction should go past the proposed completion

date, but the Board takes notice that some delay is possible, and so

grants Petitioner

a variance until October 15, 1974, or when the project

is completed, whichever

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusion of law

of the Board.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Petitioner,

FS

Services,

Inc.,

be

granted a variance until October

15,,

1974,

or

the

completion of their compliance plan, whichever comes first, from Rule

205

(a) of Chapter

2,

Part II, of the Board’s regulation, for six stor-

age tanks at its Kingston Mines facility, subject to the following con-

ditions:

1)

Petitioner shall submit bi-monthly reports to the

Environmental Protection Agency, beginning one

month from the entry of this Order, indicating pro-

gress made toward completion of its proposed com-

pliance plan.

2)

Respondent shall, within

35 days from the date of

this Order, post

a performance bond in a form sat-

isfactory to the Agency in the amount of $50,000,

guaranteeing installation of equipment to comply

with Rule 205

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, certify that the above Opin’on and Order was adopted by the

Board on the

~1~)*

day of .~7

,

1974, by a vote of

___

tOt)

11

—

344