ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    September
    27,
    1974
    AMERICAN
    DECAL
    AND
    MANUFACTURING
    COMPANY,
    Petitioner,
    V.
    ?CB74-~255
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by
    Mr.
    Henss)
    American Decal and Manufacturing Company seeks variance from
    Rule
    205(f)
    of the Air Pollution Control Regulations until June
    1,
    1975.
    Such relief is allegedly reauired so that the company may
    continue to operate coating oven
    #1 with nonexempt solvents,
    because Petitioner’s supplier has not been able to provide exempt
    solvents.
    Petitioner states that experimentation with various
    solvents, presumably exempt solvents, will continue during the
    term
    of the variance.
    Petitioner owns and operates a four-story decalcomania plant
    in an industrial area near Fullerton Avenue and Pulaski
    Road in
    Chicago,
    Illinois.
    The plant produces a variety of products
    including governmental revenue decals, emission control
    identification
    decals,
    reflective sheeting for street
    signs,
    stop
    signs
    and
    other
    highway and road signs and identification,
    instruction,
    window signs
    and nameplate decals.
    These products are sold nationally
    to
    state,
    county and municipal government
    as
    well
    as private industry.
    There are no homes or residences on
    the
    east, west or north
    sides of this plant.
    The nearest homes are located about 200 feet
    south of the plant.
    Petitioner states that no odor problem
    associated with this plant presently exists.
    The manufacturing of decalcomania involves a sophisticated
    multiple coating process using formulations developed over
    a period
    of many years of extensive experimentation.
    Two chemicals used in
    this process appear to be the source of Petitioner’s
    need for
    variance.
    One of the chemicals used in the process, Xyloi,
    is
    manufactured exclusively by Ashland Chemical Company.
    Petitioner
    —2—
    states that Ashland
    is developing an exempt solvent mixture to replace
    the nonexempt Xylol and had represented to Petitioner that such
    replacement would be developed in time for Petitioner to achieve
    compliance.
    A trial shipment of the exempt replacement was delivered to
    Petitioner on May
    8,
    1974 but was unsuccessful
    in applications because
    of an error in Ashland’s manufacturing procedure.
    Another trial
    shipment is reportedly due to be delivered at any time.
    On the basis of samples previously delivered by Ashland,
    Petitioner
    proposes to achieve compliance with Rule
    205(f)
    on coating oven
    #1
    by switching to exempt solvents according to the following schedule:
    Pounds per Hour Emitted
    June,
    1974
    Approx.
    8.8
    July
    1974
    Approx.
    7.2
    August,
    1974
    5.44
    Sept., 1974
    2,88
    The need for variance until June 1,
    1975
    is allegedly required
    despite the above schedule because Ashland cannot assure Petitioner
    of sufficient supplies of exempt solvents in the future.
    Petitioner
    cites
    a number of consequences that denial of this variance would
    cause including the virtual total shut down of the Chicago plant and
    three branch plants in Cincinnati and Cleveland,
    Ohio and Canada.
    Alternative control measures such
    as installation of an after burner
    are claimed
    to be prohibitive in cost and questionable because of
    lack of fuel needed to operate such equipment.
    A reading of the Agency’s recommendation,
    however, shows
    that
    the need for variance is already moot.
    Paragraph 16 of
    the Agency’s
    recommendation,
    as amended,
    states:
    “Petitioner brought coating oven
    #1
    into compliance
    with Rule
    205(f) during July,
    1974,
    as admitted by
    Petitioner
    in its letter to the Agency dated August
    5,
    1974
    (See Exhibit A).~’
    While the referenced letter does not contain an actual admission of
    compliance,
    the figures submitted
    with
    the letter do indicate
    that
    13
    —
    702
    —3—
    compliance was achieved during July,
    1974 as Petitioner had
    scheduled.
    As the Board has stated on numerous occasions,
    a necessary
    prerequisite for receiving
    a variance is
    the
    showing of noncompliance
    with the law.
    A variance cannot be granted on the possibility,
    speculative in nature,
    that an event may occur.
    In this case there
    is no clear showing that Petitioner will be unable
    to obtain exempt
    solvents.
    If such event does in fact occur at
    a later date causing
    noncompliance, then Petitioner can seek
    a variance at such time.
    From the information available, we find that Petitioner
    is in
    compliance and no such variance is now required.
    The petition
    is hereby dismissed as moot.
    IT IS
    SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L, Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on this
    27th day of Septerr~er, 1974 by a vote of 5-0.
    42
    13
    —
    703

    Back to top