ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARI)
    August 23, 1973
    MOBIL OIL CORPORATION
    v.
    J
    PCB 73-239
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    )
    ORDER OP TIlE BOARI) (by Mr. Dumelle)
    Petitioner filed for variance on June
    8, 1973 from Rules 103 (b)
    (1) and 103 (b) (2) and 104 (a) of the Air Regulations, prohibiting
    operation w:ithout an operating permit, during the period that
    petitioner’s pending permit appeal is being processed (Case #73-83).
    Agency recommendation was filed August 7, 1973. No hearing was
    he
    1d.
    Mobil Oil Corporation operates a sulphuric acid and diaminonium
    phosphate (DAP) manufacturing plant in DePue, Illinois which emits
    sulphur dioxide and sulphuric acid mist. Preliminary to making
    installation of certain equipment at its plant, petitioner obtained
    an operating permit from the Agency on January 5, 1973, However,
    because certain conditions were
    attached to
    the permit, which were
    not
    acceptable to petitioner, petitioner contrued the imposition
    of such condit:ions as a refusal to grant the permit pursuant to
    Rule 103(k) which gave the Board jurisdiction to consider the appeal
    of the permit denial under Section 40 of the Environmental Protec-
    tion Act. Petitioner construes its action pursuant to the foregoing
    provisions
    as
    vitiating the permit previously issued and, accordingly,
    subjecting petitioner to possible assertions of violation of the
    ~ules 103 and 104 above noted for operating without a permit.
    The Agency’s recommendation observes that the provision enabling
    an applicant to construe a condition imposed by the Agency on the
    permit as a refusal
    and
    thereby provide for an appeall under Sec-
    tion 40, is merely a procedural device allowing the Board to take
    jurisdiction of this type of proceeding, and does not in any way
    negate the permit issued. As stated in the Agency’s recommendation:
    U~,
    .Petitioner has been issued, and possesses, an operating
    permit. Since that permit has not specifically been revoked,
    it remains in effect, notwithstanding Petitioner’s exercise
    of its option to consider it
    as
    not having been granted for
    9
    —
    99
    -2-
    purposes of appealing certain conditions attached thereto.
    Consequently, petitioner needs no variance for protection
    against an enforcement action for operating without a permit.”
    We believe this is a proper statement of the situation and,
    accordingly, deny the variance. Whatever petitioner may do in
    the operation of its facilities, it presently possesses an
    operating permit albeit one that it does not like, and its appeal
    to this Board does not nullify the permit. Should it operate in
    violation of any of its terms, conceivably it would be vulnerable
    to an enforcement action by theAgency. However, the validity of
    the permit and the conditions imposed by it are the subjects of
    the pending appeal proceeding before this Board, and no variance
    has been sought with respect to the terms and conditions contained
    in it.
    Accordingly, the petition for variance is denied.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify the above Order was adopted on the
    ~
    day of August, 1973 by a vote of
    — ______
    Christan L. Moffett,,~)~èrk
    In
    ~th~b
    Illinois Pollution C6~ro1. Bo~cd
    9
    — 100

    Back to top