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