ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 10, 1974

ADDRESSOGRAPH—MULTIGRAPH CORPORATION,

MULTIGRAPHICS DIVISION,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 73—290

PCB 73—449

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

Sidney G. Craig, Attorney for Petitioner

Kinneth

J. Gumbiner, Assistant Attorney General for the Agency

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Henss)

Petitioner operates a plant in Mt. Prospect, Cook County,

Illinois for the manufacture of copying machines, photosensitized

papers and toners. On March 28, 1973 Petitioner submitted to the

Environmental Protection Agency its application for permits to

operate five ovens which are used for the drying of solvent coating

at the plant. The Agency issued permit No. 0 3 03 2586 allowing

the plant to operate, but only until December 31, 1973. The Company

filed a Permit Appeal (PCB 73-290) contending that the expiration

date of the permit should be May 1, 1975.

Petitioner admits that toluene emissions from each of the

drying ovens during the solvent coating operation are about 400

lbs. per hour. Rule 205(f) Air Pollution Control Regulations staLes:

“No person shall cause or allow the discharge of more

than 8 lbs. per hour of organic material into the

atmosphere from any emission source, except as provided

in paragraphs (f) (1) and (f) (2) of this Rule 205...

(2) Exceptions: The provisions of Rule 205(f)

shall not apply to:

(D) any owner, operator, user or manufacturer,

of paint, varnish, lacquer, coatings or

printing ink whose compliance program

and Project Completion Schedule as required

10

—

617

—2—

by Part 1 of this Chapter, provides for the

reduction of organic material used in such

process to 20 or less of total volume by

May 30, 1975.

Petitioner had submitted a Compliance Plan and Project Completion

Schedule with its permit application. The Compliance Plan and Project

Completion Schedule called for the complete elimination of the toluene

emissions by May 1, 1975 by moving the operation to another State.

The Agency disapproved of this method of meeting the Regulations and

therefore found that the Compliance Plan and Project Completion

Schedule were inadequate. Petitioner, on the other hand, contended

that if compliance is achieved prior to the May 30, 1975 deadline for

meeting the Standard, then there is no reason for denying an operating

permit.

Early in October 1972 corporate officers decided against closing

the Mt.

Prospect facility. Property which had been acquired for

construction of new facilities in other States was then sold, because

there had been a decrease in demand for Petitioner’s product and for

ther economic reasons. Since the Mt. Prospect plant will remain in

peration it became necessary to bring Petitioner into compliance with

the Illinois Regulations by methods different from those previously

?roposed. A new permit application was filed with the Agency accom-

?anied by a Compliance Plan and Project Completion Schedule showing

:hat compliance will he achieved through incineration of the organic

~missions, and not through removal of the plant to another State. The

)lan is to reduce solvent hydrocarbon emissions by 95 with a control

;ystem which will be fully operational by December 31, 1974 and not

ater than February 3, 1975.

Petitioner states 

that

it will switch from direct firing to

.ndirect firing on its ovens, utilizing heat generated from the after-

~urners and reducing the need for supply of natural gas. With this

‘rocedure, Addressograph’s need for YLatural gas can apparently be met by

orthern Illinois Gas Company.

Petitioner now requests a one year variance from Rule 205(f) of

he Air Pollution Regulations to allow installation of the incinerators.

etitioner’s attorney states that “a decision will apparently be un-

ecessary on the permit appeal, if the necessary time variance can he

btained”.

Petitioner’s decision to install incinerators came late, but 

annot conclude that the hardship was self-imposed. The lateness of

ecision was apparently caused by a changing ecnomic and market

ituation.

The EPA is of the opinion that the proposed control program 

will

dng the coating operation into compliance and agrees that a one year

ime schedule for the ordering, delivery, installation

and testing

the equipment is reasonable. The Agency has recommended that the

iriance be granted, subject to certain conditions. 

We will allow the

iriance and will incorporate those conditions suggested by the Agency.

10—618

—3—

We are pleased that the Petitioner’s facility will remain in

Illinois as a part of the vigorous economy of this State. The

closing of the plant would cause the layoff of 470 employees, the

discontinuation of paper products necessary for office copying

machines and some loss of profit to the Petitioner.

EPA employees interviewed citizens residing in the general

vicinity of the plant. Even though some of the citizens complained

of odors, all of them approved of the fact that Petitioner now has

control program, and therefore no objections were raised to the

granting of the variance.

With the grant of the variance, the reason for denial of oper-

ating permit has now been removed. The Agency will give due regard

to this opinion in considering Addressograph’s new application for

permit. The current permit appeal is therefore moot and is dismissed.

ORDER

It is the order of the Pollution Control Board that:

A. Petitioner Addressograph-Multigraoh Corporation,

Multigraphics Division be granted variance from

Rule 205(f) of the Air Pollution Control Regu-

lations in the operation of its Mt. Prospect

facility until January 10, 1975 for the purpose of

brinqingthat facility into compliance through the

installation and operation of incineration equipment.

B. Petitioner shall make timely applications to the

Agency for all necessary construction and operating

permits.

C. Petitioner shall by February 14, 1974 post a bond

in the amount of $25,000 in a form acceptable to

the Environmental Protection Agency, such bond to

be forfeited in the event Petitioner fails to in-

stall and operate the control equipment by

February 3, 1975. The bond shall be mailed to:

Fiscal Services Division, Illinois EPA, 2200

Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706.

D. The permit appeal (PCB 73-290) is dismissed.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted this 

_________

day of 

_________,

1974 by a vote of ______to_____

10—619

—4—

I,Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, her4by certify the above Opinion and Order 

was adopted

this

~ day of~

1974 by a vote of 

~‘

—

620