ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 20, 1985

CHICAGO

ROTOPRINT COMPANY,

)

Petitioner,

P05 84—151

ILLINOIS ~NV1kONNi~r~TAJ~

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)

~pondent.

MESSRS. HOWARD

L. CI~13RGAND HARVEY M~

SHELDON

(NISEN, ELLIOTT,

& MEIER)

APPEARED

OILiEHALF OF PETITIONER;

MR

PETER

ORLINSKY ~i~TORNEY-AT-LAW)APPEARED ON BEHALF OF

RESPONDENT

OPINION

AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J.

D. Dumelle):

This matter comes before the Board upon an

October

3, 1984,

petition for e~tensionof variance from

35

Iii. Adm.

Code 215.401

(formerly

Rule

~05(s)of Chapter

2:

h~rPollution)

filed

on

behalf of

the

~cago Rotoprint Company for two

presses located

at

its

facilit

at 4601 West Belmont Avenue, Chicago,

Illinois.

Pursuant to

Se~:;tion215.405, Rotoprint~spresses were

to

be

in

compliance with Section 2l5~40lby December 31,

1983.

However,

on May 3,

1984,

the Board granted Rotoprint variance from the

applicable

rules until September 30,

1984

(PCB 83—238),

Roto~

print now requests t~hatvariance be extended from November

8,

1984, through December

20,

1984,

~to complete additional work

required under

its contract with Montgomery Ward

& Company, which

contract

was

in part the basis for its

initial petition.

The

demand

for this work by the customer was received by Rotoprintus

planning

department after

the prior variance was granted and thus

could not have been included

in Rotoprint~soriginal peti—

tion~’ (Pet.

p.

2).*

The Agency filed

its Recommendation in this

*This varianc.

~~ons~

:ed subs~~

to ~a

expiration

of tLr

r.O~’~t~1oO ~or whieh ~it~

ir ~equeste~

yet,

the

information

before the Board was,

for

the most part,

generated

prior

to

~ui~u~tu~mtuL

of the requested variance period.

This is

somewhat awkward, but also appears to have been unavoidable.

Further,

at hearing Rotoprint requested that the variance be

retroactive

to September 30,

1984, and the Agency

concurred,

However,

the record includes no evidence that variance

is

necessary

prior

to November

8,

1984.

---

matter on November 20,

1984, and hearing w~ held on Dc.cember

4,

1984.

No citizens were

in attendance and

r

c ~~mr’ent~have

been received by the Board,

Rotoprint is

a pthlication printer utilizing the publication

rotogravure printing prooess to print magazines,

mail order cata-

logues and brochures,

Currently eight publication rotogravure

presses are permitted.

To comply with Sections 215,401 and

215.405,

two solvent recovery systems were installed to control

six of the presses at a total cost of over $3 million

(Rec.

p.

2).

These two control systems achieve 80

capture and control

efficiency wt~chis greater than the 75 percent efficiency

required by

ction 215,401.

The t~

resses, Nos

7 and 16

which were ~Me subj~tof

the pL~vioL

~riance were not contr~~c~

by

J~,. r~’hal1e~~

vent recove

systems.

Howeve

,

to me~ ~wc

~ng~term

contractual

reements with Mc tgomery Waja & ~o. and Spiegel,

Inc., Rotop~

operated them

ursuant to that variance for

approximatel

37 days

in 1984

(Rec,

p.

2).

Rotoprint has

determined

t

t to complete its contractual obligation with

Montgomery Ward,

it must operate press No,

16 for an estimated

additional 44 days

(from November

8

to December

20,

1984),

For

this reason,

it filed tte inetant petition seeking an extension

of the previou

variance,

Rotoprint has discontinued the use

of

Press No,

7 as

f September 30,

1984,

and should have

decommissioned

ress No,

16 on

ecembe~.30, 198~~,

Consequently,

as of the end

1984 none of the presses at the plant should

have been out

complianc~,

Rotoprirt is located

ir

a mix~dresidential and commercial

area on Chicago’s northwest s~dein Cook County, which

is

a non~

attainment area for ozone

a cipound which

is formed by hydro-~

carbon emiseio

s cu

3

os~rma’t d from the Rotoprint

plant.

In ~98

,

aib

a

r jwiity standards for ozone were

not exceede

at the c

0”

‘one monitor

(located approximately

five miles to

the southwe

j

Ir

1983,

the standard was exceeded

once,

and

Ia 1984 there

va~

?

excursLin

(Rec,

p.

5).

The

Agency alle e

Li

t

he

e

rivironmental impact of operating

Press No.

16 1ur~rgt

var~anceperiod

is minimal,

During the variance

c

enion,

Rotoprint estimates that 98

tons

VOC will be emitted,

75 percent of these VOC emis-

sions

are to

be. cont~ ~ed

a

Section 215.401, Rotoprint will

emit 73,5 tons VO

‘~

a11owabI~~t maximum mroduc—

tion,

Rotoprint

.

ernal

lowers

total VO~ ~

LL

g the proposc~variance period to

47

tons over aLiowable

P

pp.

3—4), due to overcontrol

of the

---

3

~oai~irtjsix presses.*

Further, Mr.

Henry Rodriguez,

~?o

oprint

s Corporate

Environmental

Coordinator,

informed the

y that actual production

on Press

No,

16 might be as

much as

50

percent

less than the

original estimate,

such that actual VOC

ert”sioos could be

as little as 49 tons

during

the variance

period,

36.75

tons VOC

over the allowable disregarding any offset

(Eec,

p.

6),

Including

“offsets,” then,

the emissions may be as

little

as

10.25

tons

over allowable,

Finally,

given the fact

that

the variance will

extend only

during

November and December,

t~heoc’currence of an ozone

violation is

highly

unlikely since

that

tii’ie period

is well

outside the ozone season.

i

3o~udI

that

compliance with

35

Ill, Adm.

Code

~equested

variance

period would

constitute

an

un~as

ole anc

bitrary

hardship.

The

work

is being done

under

~

terms

tI~

same contract Rotoprint had with

Mo ~tgomeryWard

o~. th~Wtime of

the original

variance

petition,

but could not have

been

anticipated

at that

time

(Pet.

p.

7).

ti~work cannot

‘~‘e

transferred

to a controlled press.

Further,

the short—term of the variance and Rotoprint’s plan

to

~ecomm ssion Press No,

16

after the Montgomery Ward work

is

corn—

Litcd,

it

is economically

unreasonable

to require

petitioner

to

a~t311

control and

capture system on Press No,

16 which might

St

ifl

excess of one

million dollars

(Pet,

p.

4).

The Board finds

that granting variance

in this situation

is

appropriate.

Rotoprint

is bound by a contractual agreement

entered into

before the final adoption of Sections 215,401 and

215.405 which requires

the use of an uncontrolled press.

Roto—

print has achieved

compliance at the remaining presses,

and

in

fact, over complied.

It has

satisfactorily

demonstrated

its

need

to op~r~c this press and yet

cannot

economically bring

it

into

~ooiIai

?

$he

Board

is

satisfied

that there

is litUe

or

no

3

u

Ith impact.

Therefore,

the relief

requested

a

t

tt? conditions set out

in the Order

t

o

1

o

i

s imposed are those recommended by the

XC?

t

ose which

would now require actions to have

~een taken

n the n st.

It

is

not

reasonable to order past

~c dons

hen ~uct actions

have, presumably, been taken, but

may

r~ na’e been and, perhaps,

could

not

now be accomplished.

TLLi Opinion constitutes

the

Board’s findings of fact

and

o~iclusiorsof law in this matter,

*Th

Board notes that

it

is

unaware

of any “internal offset”

provLiior ap~1icab1eto Rotoprint’s presses and that the figures

considered only in terms of the environmental

if

~

vs of any legal offset,

63-93

---

4

ORDER

Chicago Rotoprint Company

is

granted variance from Sections

215.401 and 215.405 of

35 Ill, Adm, Code:

Part 215, subject

to

the

following conditions:

1.

Press No.

16 shall be operated only to enable Rotoprint

to perform

its

Ward

& Company.

2.

Variance

for Press No,

16

shall extend from November

8

through December

21,

1984.

3.

Within 45 days of the

date of this Order, Rotoprint

shall execute

a Certification of Acceptance and

Agreement

to he bound

to all terms

and conditions of the

variance.

Said Certification

shall be submitted to

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

2200 Churchill

Road, Springfield,

Illinois

62706,

The 45 day period

shall be held

in abeyance

during any period that this

matter

Is being appealed.

The form of said

Certification shall be as follows:

CERTIFICATION

I,

(We)

,

the Order

of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

dated February

20, 1985, understand and accept the said Order,.

realizing that such

acceptance renders

all terms

and conditions

thereto binding and enforceable.

AuthorIzed Agent

Title

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

Board Member J. Theodore

Meyer concurred,

---

5

I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certi~ythat the

abop

Opinion and Order was

adopted on the

_i4t~

day of

__________

____,

1985, by a vote

of

—

/

e’tt~r4

~,

____

Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk

-—________

tlltnoi.s Poflution Control Board