ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May
    3, 1984
    CHICAGO ROTOPRINT COMPANY,
    )
    Petitioner,
    V.
    )
    PCB 83—238
    ILLLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    MR.
    HARVEY
    M SHELDON (NISEN,
    ELLIOT,
    & MEIER) APPEARED ON BEHALF
    OF PETITIONER.
    MR. PETER ORLINSKY
    (ATTORNEY—AT-LAW) APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
    RESPONDENT.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by ~J.Theodore Meyer):
    Chicago
    flotoprint Company (Rotoprint) petition for Variance
    on December 28,
    1983.
    Rotoprint seeks variance from Section 215.401:
    Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing in 35
    Ill. Adm.
    Code:
    Chapter I,
    Subtitle
    B:
    Air Pollution
    formerly
    Rule 205(s)
    for
    two presses located at its facility at 4601 West Belmont Avenue,
    Chicago,
    Illinois.
    Attendant to that Section
    is Section 215.405:
    Compliance Dates and Geographical Areas.
    Pursuant to the latter,
    Rotoprint’s presses were
    to be in compliance with Section 215.401
    by December 31,
    1983.
    The Agency filed its Recommendation in
    this matter on February 23,
    1984,
    and hearing was held on April
    10, 1984.
    No citizens were
    in attendance and no public comments
    have been received by the Board.
    Petitioner
    filed a Motion
    for
    Expedited Consideration on April
    18,
    1984 alleging that long term
    contractual obligations require it to operate the two presses
    which are the subject of the variance request in mid—May,
    1984.
    That motion
    is granted.
    Rotoprint is a publication printer utilizing the publication
    rotogravure printing process.
    That process involves paper and
    ink;
    the ink includes pigment binder and solvent;
    the solvent
    constitutes 50 percent of the ink and is
    a mixture of toluene
    and naptha.
    Using this process, Rotogravure prints magazines,
    mail order catalogues and brochures.
    Currently 12 publication
    rotogravure presses are permitted.
    To comply with Sections
    215.401 and 215.405 four presses were eliminated by December 31,
    1983 and two solvent recovery systems were installed to control
    six of
    the
    eight remaining presses at a total cost of $3,182,450.
    (Pet. pp.
    7—8).
    58-29
    —2—
    These two control systems achieve greater than the 75 percent
    capture and control efficiency required by Section 215.401.
    With
    the reduced press capacity Rotoprint will use only 6,000 tons of
    solvent per year,
    as opposed to its historical usage of 9,000
    tons annually.
    Based on this, Petitioner would be required to
    control 4,500 T/yr,
    and allowed to emit 1,500
    T/yr,
    However, the
    Petitioner finds that in actual practice 80 percent control
    efficiency is achieved, thereby emitting only 1,200
    T/yr.
    There-
    fore, annually it over controls by approximately 300 tons.
    (Pet. p.
    4).
    The two presses,
    Nos.
    7 and 16, which are the subject of
    this variance are not controlled by the installed solvent recovery
    systems.
    However, to meet two long term contractual agreements
    with Montgomery Ward
    & Co. and Spiegel, Inc., Rotoprint needs to
    operate them for approximately 97 days in 1984.
    (Pet. p.6).
    At
    hearing, Petitioner’s corporate environmental manager testified
    that the unique specification of these contracts require the use
    of these two presses; the job cannot be shifted to controlled
    presses for approximately 77 days necessary.*
    (R.
    6—7,
    3).
    After the contractual obligations are satisfied and sometime
    before September 30,
    1984,
    Petitioner plans to shut down these
    two presses.
    Since the Petitioner cannot utilize the presses
    already installed,
    the possibility of controlling these two
    presses was explored.
    It was determined that construction of a
    carbon adsorption solvent recovery system was physically impos-
    sible in sufficient time to meet contractual deadlines.
    Further-
    more, the cost would be approximately $1 million.
    Reformulated,
    compliance
    inks which would provide the high quality smooth
    finishes contractually required are not available.
    (Pet.
    p.
    9).
    If granted variance, Petitioner plans to operate two presses
    for a total
    of 77 days,
    emitting 395 tons of volatile organic
    materials.
    (Pet.
    2,
    Ex.
    A).
    This is a maximum of 296.25 tons in
    excess of Section 215.204 limits.
    As far as other contractual
    obligations will allow,
    Petitioner will limit emissions from its
    other presses during the operation of the two non—compliance
    presses.
    (Pet.
    10).
    If denied variance, Petitioner alleges
    arbitrary and unreasonable hardship would result.
    It
    could be
    placed in jeopardy of enforcement under the Act, or on the other
    hand,
    subject to potential contractual non—performance.
    To avoid
    either alternative,
    Petitioner would be forced to spend $1 million
    dollars for a final run of these presses.
    Furthermore, since
    it
    over controls at six presses for approximately 300 tons per year,
    annually compliance will
    he achieved.
    Petitioner alleges that an
    alternative control strategy is not available based on the over
    control
    factor because it cannot assure that the annual emissions
    *The 20 day difference represented in the Petition and at
    hearing
    is negligible since the emissions attributable to the
    jobs will remain the same.
    58-30
    savings will he experienced on a daily or even a monthly level.
    Therefore,
    it is not environmentally equivalent.
    petitioner alleges no environmental damage because the 300
    additional tons of emissions is of negligable impact on ozone
    formation.
    (Pet. pp.
    7—8).
    The Agency,
    in its Recommendation,
    stated that extension of the compliance deadline will not cause
    increased health impairments because Petitioner will be required
    to comply with its Episode Action Program and will be over control-
    ling at the remaining presses.
    (Rec.
    4).
    The Board finds that granting variance in this situation is
    appropriate.
    It appears that Petitioner is bound by a contractual
    agreement entered into before the final adoption of Sections
    215.401 and 215.405 which require the use of the two uncontrolled
    presses.
    Petitioner has achieved compliance at the remaining
    presses,
    and in
    fact, given the nature of the control equipment,
    over complied.
    Petitioner has satisfactorily demonstrated that
    it needs to operate these presses and yet cannot economically
    bring them into compliance.
    The Board is satisfied that any
    potential public health impact will
    be minimized by Petitioner
    simultaneously reducing as much as possible emissions
    from its
    controlled presses when operating the two uncontrolled presses
    and abiding by its Episode Action Plan.
    Both efforts are especially
    important since variance is for a period of time traditionally
    considered the ozone season.
    The relief requested
    is granted
    subject to the conditions set out in the Order below.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    Petitioner, Chicago Rotoprint Company is granted variance
    from Sections 215.401 and 215.405 of 35 III,
    Adm, Code:
    Part
    215; subject to the following conditions:
    1)
    Press Nos,7 and 16 shall be operated to perform its
    contractual
    agreements with Montgomery Ward
    & Co. and Spiegel’s
    Inc.
    When these two presses are operating,
    Petitioner shall
    minimize operation of the remaining controlled presses as
    much as contractual obligations will allow.
    2)
    On or before October 31,
    1984 Petitioner shall
    submit a
    report to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    detailing the following information for each uncontrolled
    press:
    a)
    Total operating hours;
    b)
    Total amount of ink consumed;
    58-31
    —4—
    c)
    Average daily emissions;
    d)
    Total volatile organic emissions during the perior~
    of the variance.
    Copies of the report are to be sent to:
    Environmental Protection Agency
    Division of Air Pollution Control
    Control Programs Coordinator
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield,
    Illinois
    62706
    Environmental Protection Agency
    Division of Air Pollution Control
    Region
    1, Field Operations Section
    1701 South First Avenue
    Suite 600
    Maywood, Illinois
    60153
    3)
    Before the Petitioner operates either Press No.
    7 or
    16, Petitioner shall apply to the Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agency for all the requisite operating permits
    pursuant to Section 201.160(a)
    of 35
    Ill. Adm, Code:
    Part
    201.
    4)
    Within 45 days of the Board’s
    final Order herein,
    Petitioner shall execute a Certification of Acceptance and
    agreement to be bound to all terms and conditions of the
    variance.
    Said Certification shall be submitted to both the
    Agency at the addresses specified in paragraph two, supra,
    and to the Illinois Pollution Control Board at 309 West
    Washington Street, Suite
    300,
    Chicago, Illinois
    60606.
    The
    45 day period shall be held in abeyance during any period
    that this matter is being appealed.
    The form of said Certi-
    fication shall be as follows:
    CERTIFICATION
    _________________________________
    hereby accepts and agrees to
    be
    (Petitioner)
    bound by all terms and conditions of the Order of the Pollution
    Control Board in PCB
    #
    ,
    dated
    (Petitioner)
    By______________________________
    (Authorized agent)
    58-32
    —5—
    (Title)
    (Date)
    5)
    Variance for Press Nos.
    7 and 16 shall expire on Sep-
    tember 30,
    1984.
    IT
    IS
    SO ORDERED.
    B.
    Forcade concurred.
    I,
    Christan L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby~c~rtifythat the above Opinion and Order
    was adopted on the ~
    ‘
    day of
    U)
    ,
    1984 by a vote of
    /.0-3
    Christan L. Moffe)~ Clerk
    Illinois Pollutioh~C1ontrolBoard
    58-33

    Back to top