ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    December 20, 1973
    NASHUA CORPORATION
    Petitioner,
    vs.
    )
    PCB 73—419
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER OF
    THE
    BOARD
    (by Mr. Seaman):
    On October
    2,
    1973,
    Petitioner, Nashua Corporation,
    filed its Petition requesting
    a variance until April
    30,
    1974,
    from Rule
    205(f)
    of the Air Pollution Control Regulations
    (effective January
    1,
    1974)
    in order to allow operation
    of its Pressure Sensitive Tape Coating Operation at its
    Industrial Tape Division Plant located at 7800 South
    Woodlawn Avenue,
    Chicago,
    County of Cook,
    Illinois.
    Petitioner also requested,
    therein,
    a variance from
    Rules 103(b)
    (2)
    and 103(b) (1)
    in order to allow the
    operation of said Pressure Sensitive Tape Coating Operation
    and of new air pollution control equipment without an
    Agency operating permit.
    By
    a Motion dated December
    4, 1973,
    Petitioner withdrew its request for a variance from Rules
    103(b) (1)
    and 103(b) (2).
    Petitioner~sprincipal place of hu’~inessis in
    Nashua, New Hampshire.
    Petitioner manufactures and sells,
    nationally and internationally,
    electrostatic copy paper,
    label papers, pressure sensitive tapes and computer disk
    packs, and petitioner, additionally,
    is in the photo-finishing
    business and engages in various other operations outside
    the United States.
    In 1970,
    Petitioner acquired a plant at 7800 South
    Woodlawn Avenue,
    in Chicago, Illinois, which had been
    constructed many years previously
    (such plant being now
    known as the Industrial Tape Division Plant and hereinafter
    referred to as the “Plant”)
    .
    Petitioner has since operated
    the Plant to produce pressure sensitive tape and pressure
    sensitive label papers.
    A total of 200 hourly employees
    10
    —
    457
    —2—
    and 65 salaried employees are employed at the Plant,
    representing
    an annual payroll of approximately $3.5
    million.
    The annual sales volume of products manufactured
    at the
    Plant
    is approximately $17 million; and approximately
    $11 million thereof represents pressure sensitive tape
    and pressure sensitive label papers processed through the
    aforementioned Pre~sureSensitive Tape Coating Operation
    (hereinafter referred to as the “Coating Operation”)
    at
    the Plant.
    The Coating Ooeration is only one of the various
    production
    facilities utilized at the Plant for production
    of the finished products there manufactured.
    The Coating
    Operation
    is located in a large enclosed area of the
    Plant.
    The production equipment consists, essentially,
    of a series of machines called “coaters”.
    The adhesive
    coating liquid used i3 produced at the Plant through
    earlier production
    steps and consists, principally,
    of
    rubbers
    (natural and synthetic)
    ,
    resins,
    solvents, pigments,
    plasticizers, and special property chemicals.
    The Plant
    operates on a 24-hour day schedule for five days
    a week,
    plus frequent overtime operations.
    In the coating process,
    in an average 24—hour day
    operation,
    approximately 88,000 pounds of raw material
    are utilized in the production process consisting of
    approximately 40,000 pounds of web material and about
    48,000 pounds of adhesive coating liquid made up of approx-
    imately 30,000 pounds of solvents,
    14,000 pounds of rubber
    compounds,
    4,000 pounds
    of resins,
    50 pounds of pigments,
    50 pounds of plasticizers
    and 200 pounds of special property
    chemicals.
    The solvents used, and the average approximate
    daily use thereof,
    are: naptha
    —
    18,000 pounds; toluene
    6,000
    pounds; hexane
    -
    3,000 pounds; and heptane
    -
    3,000
    pounds.
    There
    is no measurable emission of~rticu1atematter
    from the Coating Operation.
    Approximately
    98 percent of the
    solvents in the aforementioned adhesive coating liquid
    are removed by evaporation in the Coating Operation.
    Of
    the solvents involved, only toluene is
    a photochemically
    reactive material as that term is defined in Rule
    201 of
    the Board’s Air Pollution Control Regulations.
    The estimated
    hourly emission of toluene in the course of an average
    daily operation of the Coating Operation
    is approximately
    250 pounds.
    The average hourly emission of organic material
    represented by the other solvents in an average daily
    operation of the Coating Operation is approximately 1,000
    pounds.
    The emission of solvents from the Coating Operation
    does not involve an odor nuisance and, therefore,
    under
    10—458
    —3—
    the terms of Rule 205(f),
    the limitations of Rule
    205(f)
    apply only to the photochemically reactive
    material,
    to wit, the toluene.
    The estimated rate
    of discharge
    of toluene of 250 pounds per hour
    is
    clearly far in excess of the prescribed limitation
    in Rule 205(f)
    of eight pounds per hour.
    Petitioner
    alleges that in all other respects the Coating
    Operation is and will be in compliance with the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Act and the rules and regulations
    of the Board thereunder,
    as is true of the other operations
    at Petitioner’s Plant.
    There
    is no substantial emission
    of solvents from any other operation at the Plant.
    At present,
    there
    is no air pollution control
    equipment in place for the controlling of the emission
    of solvents from the Coating Operation.
    On December 20,
    1972, Petitioner filed with the
    Agency its application for a construction permit for the
    construction of an air pollution control facility at
    the Coating Operation consisting of three carbon absorption
    units designed to remove about
    95 per cent of all the
    solvents emitted by the Coating Operation and thereby to
    comply with the standards for emission of organic materials
    set forth in Rule 205(f)
    as effective January
    1,
    1974.
    Petitioner concurrently filed with the EPA a compliance
    plan relating to
    such air pollution control equipment,
    and a project completion schedule for the installation of
    the system.
    The costs are presently projected at $730,000
    for equipment and $656,000 for installation,
    in addition
    to which engineering costs in connection with the particular
    project are projected at approximately $135,000,
    or
    a
    total projected cost of $1,521,000.
    In addition,
    the
    installation of this air pollution control equipment has
    required the expansion of the existing boiler house
    facilities at the Plant at an overall cost of approximately
    $700,000.
    The initially scheduled date for completion of
    installation of the air pollution control equipment was
    December
    1,
    1973 and the initially scheduled date for
    placing the same in full operation was December 31,
    1973.
    On February
    1,
    1973,
    the EPA issued to Petitioner its permit
    for the construction of said air pollution control equipment.
    Petitioner alleges that it has pursued with all
    diligence the procurement and installation
    of such air
    pollution control equipment, but,
    for reasons allegedly
    beyond its control, Petitioner has encountered delays which
    10—459
    —4—
    prevent Petitioner from meeting the aforesaid scheduled
    dates for completion and operation of said equipment.
    Petitioner alleges that subsequent
    to the filing
    of the construction permit application, the project
    completion schedule and the project compliance plan,
    ongoing more detailed engineering and design study and
    analysis revealed substantial, unanticipated design problems
    in two principal areas.
    First,
    such study and analysis
    showed the need for major structural changes in the building
    housing the Coating Operation in order to accommodate the
    air pollution control system.
    Second,
    such study and
    analysis showed the necessity to expand the ?xisting boiler
    house
    facility in order to generate sufficient steam
    capacity to handle the additional requirements of steam for
    the adsorption system.
    The emergence of these two factors
    in turn expanded the necessary design work of Petitioner’s
    consulting engineers about threefold and this
    in turn
    increased the time needed for completion of the design
    work by about eight weeks.
    This
    time delay in turn
    allegedly caused corresponding delay in the execution of
    construction contracts and the commencement of construction
    work on the project.
    In its Recommendation,
    the Agency states that the
    construction permit was granted because the Agency believes
    that Petitioner’s proposed.control program will bring
    the Coating Operation into compliance with Rule 205(f).
    Petitioner alleges that denial of the requested variance
    would cause an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship since
    it would necessitate closing down the coating operation
    which would result in the layoff of
    190 employees,
    loss of
    $210,000 of production per week,
    and loss of business to
    competitors.
    The Agency feels that the hardship that
    Petitioner would suffer if the variance from Rule
    205(f)
    is not granted coupled with Petitioner’s diligence in
    establishing a control program, outweighs any possible
    harm to the public which would result from Petitioner’s
    violation of Rule
    205(f)
    for four months after its effective
    date.
    We are disposed to grant the variance as requested
    by the Petitioner and as recommended by the Agency.
    However,
    this has been
    a most difficult decision.
    The discharge
    of 250 pounds of toluene per hour over
    a period of four
    months cannot conceivably be characterized as having
    negligible or insignificant impact on the quality of our
    environment.
    As
    in similarly difficult cases in the past, we have
    reached our decision by an analysis and balancing of the
    respective hardships.
    We emphasize to Petitioner that although
    this Board have given it the right to operate for the period
    10 —460
    —5—
    of the variance, Petitioner must recognize what is at
    least
    a moral duty to exercise the utmost diligence to
    complete its control program
    as quickly as possible.
    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, Nashua Corporation, be granted
    a
    variance from Rule 205(f)
    of the Air Pollution Regulations
    until April
    30,
    1974,
    for its Pressure Sensitive Tape
    Coating Operation,
    subject to the following conditions:
    1.
    Petitioner shall obtain all necessary
    operating permits from the Agency;
    2.
    Petitioner shall notify the Agency upon
    completion of its control program.
    I,
    Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, certify that the abov
    Opinion and Order
    was adopted on the ~
    day of
    _______________,
    1973
    byavoteof
    ~
    to
    ~
    10
    —461

    Back to top