ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February 26, 1976
    APECO CORPORATION,
    Petitioner,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 75—329
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    Mr. Harley Hutchins, Mayer, Brown & Platt, appeared for the
    Petitioner;
    Mr. Peter E. Orlinsky, Assistant Attorney General, appeared
    for the Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Zeitlin):
    This matter is beforc the Board on a Petition for Variance
    filed by the Apeco Corporation (Apeco) on August 25, 1975, seeking
    relief from the hydrocarbon emission limitations in Rule 205(f) of
    the Air Pollution Regulations. After the Environmental Protection
    Agency (Agency) filed its Recommendation on October 23, 1975, an
    Amended Petition was filed by Apeco on December 1, 1975. An Amended
    Recommendation was filed on January 6, 1976. A hearing was held in
    this matter on December 30, 1975, at Apeco’s plant in Evanston,
    Illinois.
    Apeco seeks permission to exceed the 8 pounds per hour limitation
    on hydrocarbon emissions contained in Rule 205(f) until May 31, 1976.
    Its present emissions from the Evanston plant, which produces coated
    papers for electrophotographic purposes, are between 400 and 500 pounds
    per hour, those emissions lasting for approximately 44 consecutive
    hours each month during specific production runs.
    Apeco’s Petition, and the evidence presented at hearing, address
    the standard issues in air Variances: Hardship, effect on the
    environment, and the relationship of the subject emission source to
    the attainment or maintenance of national ambient air quality standards.
    Apeco also raised the issue of whether the exemption in Rule 205 (f) (2) (D)
    would apply to its site, inasmuch as Apeco plans to totally eliminate
    the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons during the
    requested Variance period. Insofar as we find that the exemption in
    Rule 205(f) (2) (D) does apply, we need not address ourselves to the
    majority of the issues raised by the parties.
    The salient facts are as follows:
    20—163
    —2—
    1. There is no odor problem resulting from Apeco’s
    emissions. As a result, the only portions of Apeco’s
    emissions which are subject to the emission limitations
    in Rule 205(f) are those portions which are “photochemi-
    cally reactive,” a term defined in the regulations.
    2. By May 31, 1976, Apeco will have eliminated all
    “photochemically reactive” hydrocarbons from its emissions.
    3.
    Rule 205(f) (2) (D) states that the limitations
    of Rule 205(f) will not apply to any source within
    specific categories (which Apeco’s plant falls within)
    if that source is on a compliance schedule calling for
    the reduction of organic materials to 20 or less of
    total volume by May 30, 1977. Since, as noted above,
    Rule 205(f) applies only to photochemically reactive
    organics in the absence of an odor problem, and since
    Apeco will have no photochemically reactive organic
    emissions after i~y31, 1976, no variance is necessary.
    In addition, a reading of the Board’s Opinion accompanying the
    adoption of Rule 205(f) indicates that the Board was then concerned
    primarily with photochemically reactants. The Board specifically
    stated that “wihere no active odor nuisance is shown, compliance
    with these provisions can be achieved by switching to a less reactive
    substitute
    . . . “
    In the Matter of Emission Standards, R 71-23
    (April 13, 1972), Opinion at 40. Such a switch is the essence of
    Apeco’s compliance plan, although there will still be significant use
    of organics, with considerable organic emissions, there will be
    no
    emissions of photochemically reactive materials after May 31, 1976.
    To be eligible for a Variance, Petitioner must show ineligibility
    for an operating permit from the Agency. Barcol v. EPA, PCB 75-367
    (December 8, 1975; January 8, 1976). As a result of the foregoing, we
    determine that Apeco has not shown that it presently needs a Variance.
    The Petition must be dismissed.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
    law of the Board in this matter.
    ORDER
    IT IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD that the Petition
    for Variance in this matter be dismissed.
    20—164
    —3—
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, here~certi:
    above Opinion and Order w re
    adopted on the
    ~L
    ~1ay
    ,
    1976 by a vote of
    .....Q
    Illinois Pollution
    1 Board
    20— 185

    Back to top