ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April 16, 1981

REGENSTEINER PUBLISHING ENTERPRISE,)

INC.,

Petitioner,

)

PCB 80—121

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

)

AGEIqCY,

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by I. Goodman):

Regensteiner Publishing Enterprise, Inc. (Petitioner) on

June 20, 1980 filed a petition for variance, amended on August 25,

1980, from Rules 103(b) and 202(b) of Chapter 2: Air Pollution

Control Rules and Regulations for three of its printing presses.

The Agency’s recommendation was to grant variance from Rule 202(b)

for Petitioner’s presses #82 and #87, but stated that variance was

unnecessary for press #83 inasmuch as control equipment for that

press is now fully operational and there has been no violation

of Rule 202(b). (Rec., p.2.) The Agency recommends denial of

variance from Rule 103(b) as unnecessary if variance from Rule

202(b) is granted, citing Rule 103(b)(6)(A), whereas Petitioner

seeks variance from Rule 103(b) for all three presses. Hearing

in this matter was waived. No public comment has been received.

Petitioner’s Chicago facility utilizes six web offset print-

ing presses to produce magazine inserts, sales catalogues, annual

reports, and calendars. Petitioner 

employs 

500 persons and

typically operates for sixteen hours per day. The presses daily

consume over 50,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas for drying

purposes. The dryers are the point from which volatile organic

materials (VOM) (ink solvents) are emitted. The inks average a

39 solvent content; VOM emissions average under 60 tons per year.

Chicago is a nonattainment area for photochemical oxidants (ozone),

to which VOM emissions contribute.

All presses are to be equipped with electrostatic precipitators

(ESP’s) but Petitioner has had operational problems, partially of

an unknown cause, with retrofitting the ESP’s. Such malfunctions

result in VOM emissions which violate the allowable variable

interval visible emission limitations in Rule 202(b).

Variance from Rule 202(b) may properly be granted for press

#83. Even if at some point after filing for variance the need for

variance became unnecessary, variance will protect Petitioner from

any violations of the Act and the Board’s regulations from the

time of the filing of the petition.

4 1—251

—2—

The Board finds that Petitioner has taken sufficient steps

to comply with Rule 202(b) regarding press #83 by investigating

known problems associated with retrofitting the ESP (the tripping

of cutoffs of electronic current to individual ionizer cells) and

to minimize environmental harm associated with the increased TSP

emissions. Petitioner alleges the compliance of press #83 by

September 1, 1980. The Board finds similarly with respect to

press #87, where the ESP problems involved fouling of the condenser

cooling section. Petitioner alleges the compliance of press #87

by April 1, 1981. The Board finds that Petitioner has actively

tried to solve the ESP operational problems and, with compliance

of both presses scheduled by April 1, 1981, finds that an arbitrary

and unreasonable hardship would result by denying variance.

Therefore, the Board will grant variance from Rules 103(h) and

202(b) for presses #83 and #87.

Petitioner has no operating permit for press #82, but states

that it will apply for an ESP construction permit by April 1, 1981;

full compliance is scheduled for May 1, 1982. The hardship pleaded

by Petitioner is that to require the use of an afterburner in lieu

of an ESP would impose an unnecessary additional cost. Also, to

adequately monitor ESP malfunctions requires extended staff

attention and corrective adjusting and retrofitting when the flSP

is manufactured at a point in time before satisfactory, site-tested

developmental improvements may be made. Accordingly, Petitioner

seeks additional time to perfect refinements of the ESP and alleges

that a more efficient control of VOM will result.

The Board finds that to deny Petitioner a variance for press

#82 while it is attempting to solve operating problems of the ESP’s

for the other presses, and in effect to force Petitioner to install

an afterburner rather than an ESP on press #82, would impose an

arbitrary and unreasonable hardship. The Agency states that there

will be no substantial environmental harm by granting the variance.

The Board agrees. There have been no emissions of VOM from press

#82 for at least several months and none is scheduled until ESP

testing on or about April of 1982. This lack of operation has and

will mitigate the increased amount of VOM emitted by grant of this

variance and any consequent violations of visible emission limita-

tions. Finally, the Agency states that Petitioner has actively

sought satisfactory solutions to its noncompliance for several

years. (Rec., p.4).

The Agency intends to submit this variance as a revision to

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) (see §110(a)(3) of the Clean

Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7401, et 

!~~)~

However, grant of this variance

will not insulate Petitioner from enforcement actions under the

Clean Air Act until the variance revises the SIP.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that

Regensteiner Publishing Enterprise, Inc. be and hereby is granted

variance from Rules 103(b) and 202(b) of Chapter 2, Air Pollution

41—252

—3—

Control Rules and Regulations, as follows: (1) for presses #83

and #87 through the date of this Order; (2) for press #82 until

May 1, 1982. Variance is conditioned on full compliance with

the following conditions:

1.  Beginning on May 1, 1981, and every three months there-

after, Regensteiner shall submit reports to the Illinois Environ-

mental Protection Agency detailing the progress made in implementing

delivery, installation, testing, operation and compliance of the

electrostatic precipitator to control volatile organic emissions

from press #82. Progress reports shall be submitted to both the

Control Program Coordinator, Division of Air Pollution Control,

at 2000 Churchill Road, Springfield, IL 62706, and to the Region

I Field Operations Section, Division of Air Pollution Control,

1701 S. First Avenue, Maywood, IL 60153.

2.  Regensteiner shall submit all required construction

and operation permit applications pursuant to Rule 103 of Chapter

2 to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency on or before

May 1, 1981.

3.  Regensteiner shall on or before May 1, 1981 submit a

Certification of acceptance and agreement to be bound by all terms

and conditions of this variance to the Clerk of the Illinois

Pollution Control Board, 309 W. Washington St., Ste. 300, Chicago,

IL 60606. This condition shall be held in abeyance in any period

during which this variance is appealed. Said Certification shall

be in the following form:

CERTIFICATION

I, (We,)                        

having read

the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 80-121

dated _________________________, understand and accept the Order and

agree to be bound by all of its terms and conditions.

Petitioner

—_

Authorized Agent

Title

Date

IT IS SO ORDERED

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

Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order were adopted

on the J~,t~-dayof 

________,

1981 by a vote of 

____

Christan

L. Moffett,

C rk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board

41—253