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
we
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
a
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
~‘
—
10
—
620