ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 2,
    1974
    MOSS—AMERICAN,
    INC.,
    Petit~o~~er,
    )
    vs.
    )
    PCB 73—532
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    )
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman):
    This
    is
    a Petition for a Variance filed with the Environmental Protection
    Agency (hereinafter
    ‘Agency”)
    on
    December 17, 1973 by Moss American,
    Inc.
    (hereinafter “Petitioner”).
    Petitioner’s plant located
    in
    Madison, Madison County,
    is primarily
    engaged
    in the business of treating wood,
    mostly railroad ties with cresote.
    At the present time the wood
    is
    air seasoned
    in the yard.
    Petitioner
    is
    installing
    a new vapor drying system which will reduce
    the amount of time
    required
    to remove
    the moisture from the wood.
    Petitioner
    is installing
    a
    new oil fired boiler but states
    that it
    is
    unable
    to find complying fuels
    or
    to
    install
    control equipment adequate
    to meet the new source performance
    standard
    of
    Rule
    204(b)(Z)((k)
    of Ck\a~3terZ, part H
    of t~~at~or~s
    of
    the Pollution
    Control Board.
    Petitioner ~srequesting
    a variance for one year
    or until
    it is able
    to obtain natural
    gas or fuel oil with
    a sufficiently low
    suiphurcontent to meet Rule 2O4(b)(2)(A).
    A public hearing was held on
    March
    15,
    1974 and at that time Petitioner amended
    its Petition so
    that the
    request for one year would,
    if granted,
    run from the date of the Board Order.
    (R.
    6).
    Petitioner has calculated
    its SO2 emissions
    to
    be
    1.35 lbs/1O6B~U.
    (R.
    79).
    The new source standard contained
    in Rule 4O2(b)~(2)(A) is
    1.0 ibs/lO BTU.
    The Agency has calculated SO2 to be 1.67 lbs/lO~8TU. There has been some
    reference to blending No.
    2 and No.
    6 fuel
    oil which may account for the lower
    emission rate calculated by Petitioner.
    The objection of hearsay was raised
    as
    to Petitioner~sExhibits
    1,
    3,
    6,
    7 and 10
    all of which tend to
    indicate that low sulphur oil
    is
    in short
    supply.
    We overrule that objection and receive these Exhibits for what they
    are worth.
    Peter
    C.
    Gaskin,’Director of Environmental
    Control for the Petitioner
    and William Lamarisky, Manager for Petitioner, both testified as
    to the
    unavailability of low sulphur
    oil
    and
    the efforts they have made to obtain
    a supply.
    (See Petitioner’s
    Exhibits
    1 through
    11).
    12
    —
    197
    —2—
    The
    Agency
    reconmiended
    that
    the
    Variance
    be
    denied,
    or. if
    granted,
    be
    subject
    to
    specified
    conditions.
    The
    Petitioner is
    located
    in
    the
    t~tro-Eastarea
    which
    is
    a
    priority
    I
    502
    area.
    However,
    we find
    the
    testimony
    presented
    on
    behalf
    of
    Petitioner
    convincing.
    Petitioner
    placed
    the order
    for
    the
    subject
    boiler
    in
    the
    Fall
    of
    1972
    at
    which
    time
    the
    current
    fuel
    crisis
    could
    not
    have
    been
    predicted.
    (R.8).
    The
    new
    boiler
    and
    the
    new
    system
    is
    necessary
    to
    maintain
    production
    since Petitioner has not been able to obtain seasoned raw
    material.
    (R.
    13).
    Petitioner
    has
    investigated
    the
    alternative
    of
    using
    electricity
    to
    generate steam.
    Petitioner estimates that the cost of using electricity
    would approach $100,000
    per
    month, whereas the cost of using fuel oil varies
    between four and six thousand dollars per month.
    (R. 19, 20).
    In
    PC8
    73-371 and
    PCB
    73-438 the Board faced similar requests for a
    Variance because of the shortage of
    low
    sulphur fuel.
    In both cases a
    one year
    variance
    was
    granted
    from
    Rule
    204
    subject
    to
    certain
    conditions.
    We
    feel
    the
    same
    judgement
    should
    prevail
    here;
    however,
    we
    feel
    that
    the
    instant
    Record
    warrants
    no
    more
    than
    a
    six
    month
    variance.
    The Agency has received no objection from the public to the grant of
    this Variance.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
    law of the Board.
    IT
    IS
    THE
    ORDER
    of
    the
    Pollution
    Control
    Board
    that
    a
    Variance
    be
    granted for a
    period
    of six (6) months
    from
    the
    date
    of this Order
    from
    Rule 204(b)(a) of Chapter 2, Part II of
    the
    Regulations of the Pollution
    Control Board provided:
    That Petitioner shall
    diligently search for low sulphur fuels and
    alternate methods of conpilance and
    report
    quarterly to:
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    Division of Air Pollution Control
    Control
    Program
    Coordinator
    200
    West
    Washington
    Springfield, Illinois
    62706
    as to its progress in searching for said fuels.
    Mr. Henss dissents.
    I, Christan
    1..
    Moffett,
    Clerk of
    the
    Illinois
    Pollution Co~rolBoard
    certify that the above Opinion and Order
    was
    adopts
    on
    this
    j_
    day
    of
    .1974
    byavote
    of
    Ja!
    12— 199

    Back to top