ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
THE MEYERCORD COMPANY,
Petitioner
V.
POB 74~184
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Dr. Odell)
Petitioner,
which
operates a facility engaged in the
business cf printing
government tax stamps, filed on May
20.
1974, a Variance request from Rule 205(f) of the Air Poilut:Lon
Regulations
(Chapter Two).
Petitioner
is located in a strictly
industrial area of
Carol Stream, Illinois.
Meyercord requested
a one—year Vari~ance to enable it to
switch
from photochemicailv
reactive solvent systems to
photochemically
non—reactive solvent
systems, Industry—wide shortages of exempt
solvents was alleged
as the cause for delayed compliance.
Petitioner did not indicate
whether alternati~7e methods had been investigated to achieve com-
pliance with Rule 205(f) of Chapter Two, Petitioner alleged that
failure to grant the Variance would mean curtailment of
plant
operations and thus ~jeopardize the employment of 535 plant and
sales personnel,
Rule 205(f) of
Chapter
Two limits the discharge of any
organic material into the atmosphere to no
more than 8 pounds per
hour from any single emission source. The amounts
of
photo—
chemically reactive solvents presently discharged
by
Meyercord are:
Per Press Total
lbs/hr
_____
Roto Press (Vent A)
11,6
Roto Press (Stack B)
11.6
23.2
Barta Press (Stack H)
20,1
20.1
2 Barta Presses (Stack I)
20.1
40.2
General Press #6 (Stack P)
22.1
22.1
General Press
-
Jumbo (Stack Q)
80.2
80.2
Total
13
—
313
—2—
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) filed a
Motion to Consolidate this action with PCB 74-220 (The Meyercord
Company~v. Environmental Protection Agency) on July 18, 1974.
This was denied by Board Order on July 25, 1974. The EPA filed
its Recommendation in this case on July 30, 1974. EPA recommended
that the Variance be denied or, in the alternative, be granted
only for six months and be subject to certain reporting and
planning conditions. EPA admitted that there were no citizen
objections to
the Variance grant but agreed for Variance denial
in that:
1. Petitioner did not give any evidence or support
for
its allegation that it is financially incapable
of installing such
equipment.
2. Petitioner applied for neither an operating permit nor
a Variance until May 1974,
five months after Rule
205(f) became
effective.
He are unable to find in Meyercord~s petition
any allegation
that
Petitioner is financially
incapable
of
installing alternative
equipment..
There is ro
information
in Petitioner’s
Variance request
suggesting that alternative
means of compliance with Rule 205 (f)
have been investigated.
The second argument of EPA has some merit.
Failure to apply for a permit until May 1974 may be some evidence
bha~P~tit~nor ~
4cot faith
i~
seek ing
ri
~a’iance at tnis t~ine
However, we have
no evidence that Petitioner needed a Variance be—
fori
~ts Ma~ L974 application ~Aiso varian~e cannoc be den~ea
because of
a
nossible past violation
of the law.
He
or
ant
Meyercord a
variance
until November 1974.
We
generally agree with the Agency that the
Petition does not
fully
comply with Rule 401
of
our Procedural Rules.
The lack of any
investigation into alternative methods cf control is particularly
troublesome,
However, there is
no citizen objection, and the
Board
is aware of the shortages of exempt solvents in the industry.
On these facts, it
would
be an unreasonable hardship to deny
Meyercord this brief reprieve.
ORDER
Petitioner is
granted a variance from Rule 205(f) of
Chapter Two until November 1, 1974,
subject to the following
conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall utilize as much exempt solvent
formulations as can be furnished by its suppliers.
(b) Petitioner shall submit reports for the months of
August, September and October to:
13
—
314
Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
Control Program Coordinator
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
The monthly reports should include the total amount
of solvents used, the nature and amount of non—
exempt solvents used, the nature and amount of
exempt solvents used, the amount and nature of
exempt solvents purchased (indicating the supplier),
the amount and nature of non~exempt solvents pur~
chased (indicating the supplier), and the amount
and nature of solvents in inventory at the beginning
of each month.
Cc) Within 2 months from the date of this Board Order,
Petitioner shall submit to the Agency a modified
compliance plan to replace that which has been
nullified by shortages. This plan may:
i. Achieve compliance at the expiration
of the Variance by replacement of
photochemically
reactive solvents
with non—reactive solvents demon-
strated to be readily available; or
ii, Achieve compliance at the expiration
of the Variance by qualification under
the Alternative Standard of Rule 205(f)
(I); or
iii. Achieve compliance by May 30, 1975 under
the provisions of Rule 205(f) (2) CD),
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, h~rebycertify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted
on the ~ day of
~,
1974, by a vote of
to
Christan L. Moff~
13
—
315