ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February 28, 1974
    I
    LITHO-STRIP COMPANY, DIVISION OF )
    AMSTED,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    )
    vs.
    ) PCB 73—511
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    )
    Sheldon. A. Zabel, Attorney, on behalf of t’etitioner;
    Kathryn S. Nesburg, Attorney, on behalf of Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman):
    On December 6, 1973, Litho-Strip Company filed its
    Petition, seeking therein variance until April 1, 1974,
    fran the provisions of Rule 205(f) of the Air Pollution
    Regulations.
    Petitioner owns and operates a facility at 7247 South
    78th Avenue, in Bridgeview, County of Cook, Illinois, where
    it operates equipment for, among other things, the coating
    of metal. Petitioner’s operation consists of the cleaning
    of continuous roll strip steel, the application.~ofpaint
    by roller coating, curing the paint in bake ovens, re-
    rolling and shipping to customers.
    The Petition relates to the equipment designated by
    Petitioner as Curing Oven 1 and Curing Oven 2. These ovens
    are now served by a single stack.
    Curing Oven 1 has a maximum production rate of 432 lbs/hr,
    composed of 194 pounds of solids and 238 pounds of blends
    of non-photochemically reactive solvents, consisting of
    M.E.K., M.I.B.K., Butyl Cellusolve, and Solvesso 150. The
    estimated average aggregate production is 173 lbs/hr, of which
    95 lbs/hr is solvent.
    Curing Oven 2 has a maximum production rate of 648 lbs/hr,
    composed of 291 pounds of solids and 357 pounds of solvents
    11-399
    —2—
    presumed to be photochemically reactive. The estimated
    average aggregate production is 259 lbs/hr, of which
    143 lbs/hr is solvent.
    Petitioner calculates that the maximum hydrocarbon
    emissions from Curing Ovens 1 and 2 are 207.1 lbs/hr
    and 310.6 lbs/hr respectively. The Agency calculates
    the average emissions to be: Curing Oven 1
    -
    96.8 lbs/hr
    of hydrocarbons and 21.4 lbs/hr of particulate; Curing Oven
    2
    -
    145 lbs/hr of hydrocarbons and 32.1 lbs/hr of particu—
    lates. The particulates involved are condensibles and
    are not subject to 3.111 or Rule 203.
    On
    November 9, 1972, Petitioner applied to the Agency
    fo’~
    a permit for the subject equipment. Since the emissions
    exceeded the standards of Rule 205(f), Petitioner included
    in its application a Project Completion Schedule which in-
    dicated that Petitioner would modify the stack serving Curing
    Ovens 1 and 2 and would install new afterburners on each of
    the ovens by November 26, 1973.
    Petitioner alleges that it was delayed in its installa-
    tion of control equipment because the changing state of
    the art and changes in state regulations made many manu-
    facturers of incinerators reluctant to quote prices. Peti-
    tioner allegedly contacted five vendors for quotations on
    fume incinerator systems. Evaluation and studies continued
    until April 18, 1973, when a contract was signed with Air
    Preheater, Inc. of Wellsville,
    New
    Yrok.
    Additional time was required to design an integrated
    system which includes oven exhaust, afterburners and multi—
    use heat recovery system. All appropriations were approved
    on July 23, 1973, Petitioner alleges that due to the failure
    of material and equipment suppliers to meet delivery schedules
    and the resultant inability of the contractors to complete
    the modification of the existing equipment, the installation
    of the new control equipment cannot be expected before
    March, 1974.
    The estimated total cost of the program is $300,000.
    The proposed control equipment efficiency based on Air
    Preheater~s laboratory tests is 95 to 99. The Agency feels
    that Rule 205(f) should be met by the proposed equipment,
    since 85 efficiency is needed to achieve compliance. The
    Agency granted a construction permit on October 3, 1973.
    Petitioner~s facility is located in an industrial area
    with railro~d switch yards located to the north and east~
    To the west are apartments and scattered homes, with the
    nearest being 100 feet to the west of the facility. People
    11
    —
    400
    —3—
    living in the area were contacted by the Agency and some
    indicated that emissions or odors from Petitioner~s plant
    did not bother them in any way. Others indicated that
    they would be happy to see air pollution control equipment
    in~talledwithin the time stated in the Petition.
    The Agency is of the opinion that Petitioner has been
    acting in~good faith and that the time schedule for com-
    pliance is reasonable. Incineration is a suitable solution
    to Petitionervs problem andan allotment for gas has been
    obtained. Petitioner will be granted variance from Rule 205(f)
    until April 1, 1974.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
    conclusions of law of the Board.
    IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that
    Litho—Strip Company be granted a variance from the provisions
    of Rule 205(f) of the Air Pollution Control Regulations
    until April 1, 1974. Upon completion of the subject control
    system, Petitioner shall notify:
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    Division of Air Pollution Control
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield, Illinois 62706
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, certify that the above Oninion and Order was
    adopted on this
    ________
    day ~
    1974
    by a vote of
    ___________.
    0
    11 ~4O1

    Back to top