ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 24, 1974

TUCK INLJtJSTRIES,

INC.,

)

)

Petitioner,

vs.

)

PCB 74—293

ENVIRON~ENTALPROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

Mr. Thomas

M.

Harris, Attorney,

on behalf of Petitioner;

Mr.

Michael Ginsberg, Attorney, on behalf

of the Environmental

Protection Agency.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr.

Seaman):

This

is a petition for

a Variance brought by Tuck Industries,

Inc.

(hereinafter Petitioner), and filed with the Environmental Protection

Agency (hereinafter Agency) on August 1,

1974.

The motion seeks an extension of PCB 73-477 rendered on March 28,

1974.

PCB

73-477 granted

a Variance from Rule 205(f)

of Chapter 2,

Part II of the Regulations

of the Pollution Control Board with respect

to two coating machines

(Nos.

1 and 40) operated by Petitioner.

This

order granted a Variance for machine No.

1

until July 31, 1974 and

machine No.

40 until

December 31,

1974.

This motion, therefore,

asks

for an extension only with respect to machine No.

I

until December 3),

1974.

Petitionerts facility

is

located

in Carbondale, Jackson County,

Illinois.

Carbondale has a total

population

of 38,000, including 20,000

students.

Petitioner produces various types

of pressure sensitive tape.

No.

40 coating machine produces masking tape and No.

1

coating

machine

produces

various

types

of

specialty

tapes.

The

original

Variance

granted

in

PCB

73-477

provided

that

machine

No.

40 was

to be controlled by December 31, 1974 with the installation

of

a solvent recovery system using carbon absorption.

Machine No.

40

had been emitting 524 pounds per hour of non—exempt toluene

in violation

of

Rdle 205(f).

Completion of the vapor recovery system will

result

in

a

90

-

95

reduction in these emissions, thus, bringing machine No.

40

into compliance by way of Rule 205(f)(1)(B).

14

—

283

---

—2—

The

No.

1 machine, which

is

the subject of this motion, utilizes

Methyl

Ethyl

Ketone

(MEK)

as

a solvent,

exhausting 138 pounds per

hour of this organic material into the atmosphere.

Rule 205(f),

to

which

the coating operation

is subject, allows only eight pounds per

hour of such organic material to be emitted.

In its original

Variance

request, Petitioner intended to install

an afterburner to control

the MEK emissions

from machine No.

1.

However, when natural

gas

became unavailable

to fire the afterburner, Petitioner, consistent

with condition

(c) of the Order, pursued “development of alternative

methods

of control.”

PCB 73-477 gave Petitioner until July 31, 1974

to develop adequate controls.

During this period,

Petitioner proceeded to reformulate the

adhesive materiAl

used

in machine No.

1

so

as

to be recoverable in

the new or existing solvent recovery systems.

As indicated in

Petitioner’s motion,

initial

attempts at reformulation have failed.

Petitioner argues,

however, that such attempts

(described in paragraphs

6 through

11

of the motion)

“clearly represent the type of

‘unforeseen

contingencies and hardships’ which the Agency and the Board acknowledged

as justifying

an extension of the Variance until

December 31,

1974”

(paragraph

12 of the motion).

Both Exhibit

“A” (pages 18—19 of the

transcript of the original

Variance hearing on January 7,

1974)

and

Exhibit

“B” (PCB 73-477)

appended to Petitioner’s motion attempt to

substantiate this claim.

What

is •indicated in these exhibits is that

both

the

Board

and

the

Agency

recognized

the

right

of

the

Petitioner

to

request

another

Variance if

“unforeseen

contingencies”

occurred,

not

that

such

circumstances

“justified”

the

grantLng

of

a~nadditional

Variance.

In any event, Petitioner does seek, by the current motion, more

time within which to develop

a workable solvent formula

so as

to bring

machine

No.

1

into compliance with Rule 205(f).

Paul Schmierbach, of the Agency’s

Region 5 office, was the designated

Agency investigator.

He indicates that construction of the

new

vapor

recovery system for machine

No. 40 is well under way and that Petitioner’s

project engineer, Mr.

Herman Peter, and Plant Manager,

Mr. Matthaus

Maier, were confident that the system would be completed by September

15,

1974 (three months ahead of schedule).

Regarding machine No.

1, Petitioner

is attempting

to develop an

acrylic adhesive which would utilize

a toluene

or heptane solvent which

could easily be recovered by Tuck’s solvent recovery systems.

Mr.

Schmierbach

reports that Petitioner,

as yet, has failed to develop the

appropriate adhesive but that Petitioner

is optimistic that

a conversion

can be completed by December 31,

1974.

The Agency is also confident that Petitioner could develop the

proper adhesive and that

it

is merely

a matter of working out the right

formulation.

No

insurmountable

technical

difficulties

exist to accomplishing

this

task.

The

Agency

believes

that

Petitioner

has

demonstrated

good

faith

efforts

at compliance and that,

in light of

this,

the Variance extension

14

—

284

---

—3—

should be granted.

In addition, it should be noted that while machine No.

40 will

come into compliance under Rule 205(f)(l)(B), Petitioner intends

to

have machine

No.

1 comply under the general

Rule 205(f) eight pounds

per hour standard.

No recent citizen complaints have been received with respect

to Petitioner’s coating operations.

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.

The Petitioner be granted a Variance from Rule 205(f)

with

respect to

its coating machine No.

1

until

December 31,

1974, subject

to the following conditions:

a)

Petitioner shall submit monthly, written reports to:

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

Division of Air Pollution Control

Control Program Coordinator

2200 Churchill

Road

Springfield,

Illinois

62706

The first such report shall

be submitted thirty (30)

days after an order by the Pollution Control

Board

in this case.

These reports shall

indicate the

progress,

or lack thereof,

toward the development

of a suitable solvent which will bring coating

machine No.

1

into compliance.

They will contain

sufficient information to allow the Agency to make

an independent judgmentastowhether Rule 205(f)

compliance can be achieved.

b)

Within

10 days of the date of an order by the Pollution

Control Board, Petitioner shall submit

a redrafted Performance

Bond in

the amount of $50,000 to:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Fiscal

Services

2200 Churchill

Road

Springfield,

Illinois

62706

Said bond shall

be designed to insure installation of an adequate

control system of coating machine No.

1

by December 31, 1974 and

on coating machine No.

40 by the same date (the latter compliance

to be achieved pursuant to PCB 73—477).

14—285

---

-4-

c)

Petitioner shall apply for all necessary construction

and operating permits from the Agency pursuant to Rule 103

and Rule 104 of Chapter 2, Part

I

of the Regulations

of the

Pollution Control Board.

d)

45 days prior

to the December 31, 1974 deadline,

Petitioner shall

notify the Agency as to when it will

achieve

compliance

through

the

use

of

a

reformulated

solvent

and

operating

of

its

vapor

recovery

system.

Petitioner shall

submit

information

and

data

sufficient

to

justify

such

con-

clusion.

If at

this

time,

Petitioner

does

not

conclude

that

compliance will be achieved with this approach or,

in the

Agency’s judgment,

its data submitted does not justify such

conclusion, Petitioner shall

immediately pursue other alternatives

so

as

to achieve compliance by the December 31, 1974 deadline.

e)

In

the

event

that

Petitioner

must

pursue

alternative

means

of

complidnce

under

condition

(d),

Petitioner

shall

notify

the

Agency

of

the

alternative

means

selected,

giving

a

detailed

description

of

the

program

to

be

undertaken

to

achieve

such

compliance.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

certify that the ab v

Opinion and Order was adopted on this

_____________

day of

,

1974 by

a vote of ~

uLA~