ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September
    28, 1989
    CONTAINER CORPORATION OF
    )
    AMERICA,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 87—183
    (Variance)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J. Anderson):
    This matter comes before the Board upon an August
    31,
    1989
    motion to reconsider
    filed by the petitioner,
    Container
    Corporation of America (“CCA~). CCA requested variance from the
    Board’s regulations governing emissions from flexographic and
    rotogravure printing operations under 35
    Iii. Adm.
    Code 215.401—
    215.407 and 215.245 until December 31,
    1990.
    The Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency
    (“Agency”) filed a response
    to
    CCA’s motion
    to reconsider on September
    15,
    1989.
    CCA requests that the Board reconsider
    its July 27, 1989
    decision
    to deny CCA’s variance petition and that the Board grant
    CCA a variance until December
    31,
    1990.
    In the alternative, CCA
    requests that the Board give CCA one year from the date of this
    Order
    to come into compliance.
    CCA has presented
    to the Board new information
    in
    its motion
    for reconsideration.
    For the purpose of addressing
    this
    information,
    the Board grants CCA’s motion for reconsideration.
    In CCA’s motion for reconsideration, CCA requests that the
    Board take official notice of the United States Environmental
    Protection Agency’s (“USEPA’s”) emission estimates for the
    Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area
    (“CMSA”) as published
    in the Federal Register on July
    11,
    1989.
    The Board declines CCA’s request
    to take official notice of
    USEPA’s emission estimates for the CMSA.
    This information was
    published in the Federal Register on July
    11,
    1989.
    The Board’s
    decision regarding CCA’s variance petition was rendered on July
    27,
    1989.
    The Board declines
    to take official notice now of
    information which was readily available prior
    to the Board’s
    final decision
    in this case.
    This information does not
    1O3-~5i5
    —2—
    constitute “newly discovered evidence which by due diligence
    could not have been discovered in time.”
    (see 35 Iii. Adm. Code
    103.301(b) (1)).
    Even
    if the Board were to take official notice of USEPA’s
    emission estimates, that information would not change the Board’s
    decision to deny CCA’s variance request.
    CCA states
    in its
    motion for reconsideration that CCA’s “emission levels must be
    put
    in the context of the total load in the Chicago Metropolitan
    area.”
    However, CCA fails to cite any authority for this
    proposition.
    Indeed,
    there is
    no provision in the Environmental
    Protection Act
    (“ACT”)
    that requires the Board to determine the
    environmental impact of a proposed variance solely by comparing
    the petitioner’s emissions with regional emissions.
    As stated by
    the Agency
    in its response to CCA’s motion,
    such a comparison
    “ignores the effects many such major sources have, when
    compounded together, on the ozone nonattainment situation in the
    Chicago Metropolitan Area.”
    (Agency Resp.
    at
    3,4).
    Such an
    interpretation could
    result in greater tolerance for
    large VOM
    emissions
    in ozone nonattainment areas than in ozone attainment
    areas since the large VOM emissions would be a lesser percentage
    of the total VOM load for the nonattainment area.
    The Board
    found
    in
    its July 27,
    1989 Opinion in this case,
    as
    in Ekco Glaco,
    that CCA
    is a source of hydrocarbon emissions
    into the air, and as such contributes
    to the violation of the
    ambient air standards.
    (See Ekco Glaco Corp.
    v.
    IEPA and IPCB,
    134 Iii.
    Dec.
    147,
    542 N.E,2d 147,
    152
    (Ill.
    App.
    1 Dist.
    1989)).
    Any discussion about CCA’s VOM emissions as a percentage
    contributing
    to the regional total does not change CCA’s emission
    figures themselves, which the Board has already found are not an
    insignificant environmental impact.
    CCA’s other arguments regarding hardship and the adequacy of
    a compliance plan only misconstrue the Board’s July
    27, 1989
    Opinion and thus fail to persuade the Board to reverse its prior
    holding.
    The Board also declines to grant CCA a variance for one
    year
    to come into compliance,
    for the same reasons stated
    in this
    Order and
    in the Board’s July
    27,
    1989 Opinion and Order.
    The Board hereby declines to reverse its July 27,
    1989
    Opinion and Order which denied CCA’s variance petition.
    Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
    Ill. Rev.
    Stat.
    1987 ch.
    111 1/2 par.
    1041,
    provides for appeal of Final
    Orders of the Board within 35 days.
    The Rules of the Supreme
    Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    103—516
    —3—
    I,
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board
    ,hereby certif
    hat
    he above Order was adopted on
    the
    J’~
    day of
    ____________,
    1989, by a vote of
    ~,—O
    ~
    2
    Dorothy M. )~unn,Clerk
    Illinois Póllution Control Board
    103—517

    Back to top