ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 17, 1973
R.
R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY
)
#72—410
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PRO~CTIONAGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
v.
)
#72—472
R.
R. DONNELLEY &
SONS
COMPANY
JAMES
W. KISSEL and
~OMAS
M. McMAHON, OF SIDLEY
& AUSTIN, APPEARED
ON BEHALF OF
R.
R.
DONNELLEY
& SONS COMPANY
RICHARD W.
COSBY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(BY SAMUEL T.
LAWTON,
JR.):
The two above-captioned proceedings were consolidated
by
Order of
the Board on December 12,
1972.
#72-410
is a variance petition which
was filed on October
18,
1972,
amended by
a supplemental petition for
interim variance filed December 11, 1972 and further amended by an
addendum to petition for variance dated January 18,
1973.
The
end
result sought by the foregoing petitions is a variance of the Decent-
ber 31, 1973 compliance date for Rule 205 of the Air Pollution Regula-
tions limiting the emission of organic material
to July 30,
1974, with
respect to
8
heatset presses located in Donne11ey~sCalumet plant
building.
The petitions also sought variance of
the procedural re-
quirements of Rule 103,
to enable the obtaining of installation permits
without compliance with the project completion schedule requirements
of
Rule 103
(b) (6) (e).
On May 10,
1973,
we granted the variance sought with respect to
Rule 205 until May 10,
1974, being
the maximum period allowed for var-
iance, pursuant to statute, but subject to extension upon a showing of
satisfactory progress to July 30,
1974.
Variance of the project com-
pletion schedule requirements was also granted.
This opinion supports
the variance allowance heretofore ordered.
On December 4,
1972,
in Case #72-472,
the Agency filed an enforce-
ment action against Donnelley, alleging that in the operation of its
53 presses located in the 4 plants comprising its Chicago complex at
8—
15
23rd Street and King Drive, Donnelley emitted particulates
in vio-
lation of Rule 3-3.111 of the Rules and i~egulationsGoverning the
Control of Air Pollution and installed new equipment capable of causing
air pollution,
in violation of Section 9(b)
of the Environmental Pro-
tection Act and Section 3-2.110 of the Rules.
We find, and it will be our Order herein contained,
that the Agency
has failed to establish violation of Rule 3-3.111, but that Donnelley
has violated Section 9(b) of the Act and Rule 3-2.110 by installing
equipment without a permit.
THE VARIANCE PROCEEDING
H.
H. Donnelley
&
Sons Company is
a commercial printing establish-
ment, whose Chicago facilities consist of
four separate plants, the
Calumet plant, the South plant,
the North plant and the West plant,
although since termination of the publication of Life Magazine in
December,
1972,
the South plant has ceased operation.
(Var.
H.
38-39).
The Chicago facility contains two types of presses, rotogravure and
heatset.
The variance proceeding relates only to the heatset presses.
Afterburners are utilized to abate hydrocarbon emissions on all heatset
presses.
These afterburners have been installed over the last 23 years,
but presently do not meet the standards that will be operative, pursuant
to Rule 205 of the Air Pollution Regulations requiring 85
hydrocarbon
reduction by December 31,
1973.
Because of the termination of Donnelley’s publication of Life
Magazine, presses utilized at the South plant are presently inoperative.
Donnelley has represented that its heatset presses at all operating
locations,
except
8 presses located at the Calumet plant building,
will be in compliance with Rule 205 by December 31,
1973.
The 8
presses located at the Calumet plant will not be in compliance by
December 31,
1973, but will be brought into compliance incrementally
during the following six months, which will be no later than July of 1974.
We have granted a July 30 date to assure compliance.
In the event
compliance
is not achieved by that date, Donnelley has represented that
such non-complying presses will not operate.
The record indicates
that notwithstanding the failure of
8 of the Company’s 53 presses to
be non-complying by the December 31, 1973 date,
an overall 88
heatset
press hydrocarbon reduction level will be achieved by said date, and
by July of 1974,
the reduction level will be 92.
The
8
presses not
in compliance by December 31, 1973 will nevertheless have control de-
vices which will achieve a 45
hydrocarbon reduction level until the
individual units are complying.
With
the suspension of heatpress operation in the South plant, only
30 heatset presses will be operating during the period of this variance.
The replaced afterburners,
as indicated,
will have a 92
efficiency,
and by the end of
the variance period, a total of 30 new afterburners
—2—
8
—
16
will be installed at a total project cost in excess of $2,800,000
(Var.
R.
36),
Donnelley Exhibit #11 sets forth the installation
and compliance dates
for all presses involved for which new after-
burners are to be installed.
Three presses on which the afterburners
have already been installed are not listed.
Also listed are the 14
South plant presses discontinued as a consequence of the suspension
of Life Magazine publication.
The staggered installation program is to enable a continuation
of the plant activities during the period that the installation
is
being implemented.
Between 7 and 25 days
is required for afterburner
installation.
Because of the absence of so—called back—up presses,
installation on an incremental basis is necessary in order to assure
fulfillment of Donnelley’s printing commitments.
This is particularly
critical in view of the periodical nature of Donnelley’s publications
requiring continuing production
to meet specified delivery dates.
(Var.
R.
23—64).
The testimony bears out Donnelley’s contention that it has embarked
upon a compliance program that will assure complete compliance within
a reasonable period of time, subsequent to the operative date of the
hydrocarbon emission regulations.
The total plant emissions will be
within the required numerical limits on the deadline date,
although
the individual units will not,
in each instance, meet the regulatory
standards.
We believe the hardship upon Donnelley in being required to
conform to the December 31, 1973 date in all respects
is disproportionate
with the hardship that the community would suffer in permitting the
variance requested.
We believe that the Company has made a conscientious
effort to achieve compliance and by July of 1974,
it will be operating
well within the limits established by the Regulations.
On the record before the Board, we believe the variances to be
warranted.
THE
ENFORCEMENT
PROCEEDING
Case #72-472
is an enforcement action brought against Donnelley
alleging violation of the particulate regulations found in Rule 3-3.111
of
the
Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution, and
alleging violation of Section 9(b)
of the Act and Rule 3-2.110, as a
consequence of installing an offset press without an Agency permit.
To
sustain
its
contentions
of
violation
of
the
particulate
emission
regulations,
the Agency introduced calculations based upon purported
standard emission factors contained in Figure 524 of AP-40,
“Air
Pollution Engineering Manual” contained
in EPA Ex.
3.
Particulate
emissions from the plant’s operation can result from particulates and
dust emanating from the paper stock
(Enf.
R.
227),
the polymerization
of solvents in the dryer and afterburner
(Enf.
H.
244),
resin
(Enf.
H.
245)
and ink partic~iesentrained in the dryer exhaust as well as
—3—
8—17
products of incomplete combustion from the dryer heater.
Donnelley
contends, based on its calculations, that 74
of the particulates emitted
result from combustion of natural gas in the dryers and afterburners
used to control hydrocarbons and odor emissions.
Agency Exhibit
7 con-
tains the calculated emissions, using various assumptions, including the
constituents of the ink mixture, the efficiency of the afterburner
(EPA
Ex.
7) and the emission factor for particulates from solvent evaporation
(EPA Ex.
2).
On the basis of an estimated process rate of 50 pounds per hour,
the Agency computed particulate emissions of 0.75 pounds per hour as con-
trasted with an allowable emission rate of 0.55 pounds per hour
(EPA
Ex.
7).
The most critical assumption ~usedin the Agency calculation is
the particulate emission factor,
(EPA Ex.
3)
contained in Figure 524
from AP-40 above—noted.
This exhibit shows the formation of particulates
from solvents evaporated in paint baking ovens
as
a function of the oven
temperature.
Paint baking ovens are defined as “ovens used to dry or
harden surface coatings concurrently with the removal of organic solvents
by evaporation”
(Pg.
704, EPA Ex.
3).
Accordingly,
the dryer
is an oven
in this context.
While Exhibit
3 gives an emission factor that varies
with temperature, no support for the figure is provided in the section of
AP—40 containing the figure and we must conclude that its validity is
uncertain.
While we have given recognition to the use of standard emis-
sion factors, see Environmental Protection Agency v. Lindgren Foundry
Company,
#70-1,
1 PCB 11,
(September
25, 1970), we do not believe Figure
524 and the limited data in support of it contained in AP—40, satisfies
these requirements.
Cases heretofore allowing the use of standard emis-
sion factors have been premised upon AP-42, being the compilation of
air pollutant emission factors promulgated by the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
Where properly introduced, we have held that
this document and the figures therein contained,
can be used for the
establishing of
a prima facie but rebuttable case of violation.
As ap-
plied to the instant case, AP-42 does not contain emission factors suita-
ble as a basis to substantiate the Agency’s position and AP—40
is not
a standard emission factor document in the context in which we have
heretofore permitted proof of standard emission factors to establish a
prima facie case.
Figure 524 contained in AP-40, does not provide ade-
quate justification to support its use in an enforcement proceeding of
the character here involved.
We do not believe that violation of the
law can be demonstrated on this limited showing.
Furthermore, even if a prima facie case of violation had been proper-
ly established, we believe that such evidence has been adequately rebutted
by the stack tests made and introduced into the record by Donnelley.
The
test was performed in November, 1972 on a press, dryer and afterburner
system characterized by Donnelley as having emissions comparable to similar
facilities located at its plant.
The system is typical in
—4—
8—la
that it includes a press that prints four colors creating a reason-
ably high ink consumption rate,a high-speed variety press, an old-
type afterburner,
a direct flame inpingement radiant cup dryer and the
platinum ribbon—type after burner catalyst
(Enf.
R.
261-262).
The
results of the stack test are given in Donnelley’s Exhibit
3 and
indicate particulate emissions of 0.22 pounds per hour.
Although the
process rate was not known at the time of the test
(Enf.
R.
151),
the process rate for ink and solvent alone was determined
to be
254.5 pounds per hour (Respondent’s Exhibit
6)
for which the allowable
particulate emissions in Rule 3—3.111 would be in excess of
1 pound
per hour.
Notwithstanding the possibility that different units within Donnelley’s
plant have varying emission rates,
it does not appear likely that a
violation would be found based on the substantial difference between
the actual and allowable emissions indicated from this
test.
Accordingly,
it
is our finding that the Agency has not established
a violation of the particulate regulations as allegeil in the complaint.
A stipulation was entered into between the parties in which it is
set forth that on or about November
5,
1971, Respondent began physical
installation of press D-33 and its afterburner by beginning site prepara-
tion work.
Subsequent correspondence between the Company and the
Agency ensued.On January 26,
1972, an installation permit was received
from the City of Chicago.
On July 10, 1972,
the Environmental Protection
Agency denied an installation permit application which had been applied
for on June 15,
1972.
The press and its afterburner began operation
on or about July
17,
1972, at which date no permit had been issued.
On November
3,
1972,
an operating permit application was filed with the
Agency on which no final action had been taken on the date of the stipu-
lation,
being March
1,
1973.
It appears to be the position of Donnelley
that because its installation was initiated prior to the rendition of
our opinion in case entitled Environmental Protection Agency v. American
Generator Company, #71-329,
3 PCB 373
(January
6,
1972),
it was justified
in making the installation without an Agency permit on the apparent
assumption that Agency permits were not required for Chicago operations
unti~the foregoing opinion was rendered.
It also appears
to be the Company’s position that the press was
not new equipment and that because the old regulations do not contain
a limitation on organic material, no permit was required.
We cannot
accept the Company’s position in this respect.
As we noted in American
Generator, upon the adoption of the Environmental Protection Act in
July of 1970,
state permits have been required for all new Chicago
facilities.
What exemption might previously have existed was vitiated
by adoption of
the
Act.
—5—
a
—
Section 9(b)
of the Act requires an Agency permit for the con-
struction or installation of equipment contributing to air pollution
or designed to prevent air pollution of any type designated by Board
regulations.
Rule 3-2.110 requires a permit for installation or con-
struction of new equipment capable of emitting air contaminants into
the atmosphere and any new equipment intended for eliminating or
controlling emission of air contaminants.
The absence of hydrocarbon
standards prior to adoption of the new air regulations in no way
can be construed as a determination that hydrocarbon emissions
do not cause air pollution.
We find the record supports the Agency’s
allegations that the installation of the D-33 press without an
Agency permit violated Section 9(b)
of the Act and Rule 3-2.110.
However,
in the context of the present case, we do not believe any
useful purpose would be served by the imposition
of a penalty.
Res-
pondent appears to have made a conscientious effort to determine what
the permits
requirements were on both a City and State level and while we
do not condone the installation without the receipt of the necessary
permit,
we
do
recognize
that
some
degree
of
confusion
did
exist
during this period as to the respective jurisdictions of the City
and State, relative to permit authority.
This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board.
IT IS THE
ORDER
of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Violation of Rule 3—3.111 of the Rules and Regulations
Governing the Control of Air Pollution has not been
established by the record in this proceeding against
Respondent,
H.
R. Donnelley
& Sons Company as charged
in the complaint,
and said Re5pondent
is found not guilty
of this violation.
2.
Respondent,
R.
R. Donnelley
&
Sons Company,
is found
to have violated Section
9(b)
of the Environmental Protec-
tion Act and Section 3-2.110 of the Rules and Regulations
Governing the Control of Air Pollution, by installing an
offset press, D-33, without a
permit
issued by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
No penalty is assessed for
reasons set forth in the Opinion.
I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Boa~çd, certify
that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the
/T’~dayof May,
1973, by a vote of
‘~
to
~
:~
—6—
8—20