ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February 27, 1973
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    #72-180
    v.
    MYSTIK TAPE, A DIVISION OF
    BORDEN,
    INC.
    )
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (BY SAMUEL
    T.
    LAWTON,
    JR.):
    Respondent seeks reconsideration of the Board’s Opinion and
    Order entered January 16,
    1973.
    Respondent’s motion
    is
    denied..
    Respondent has proposed a substitute order which would grant
    it
    a variance from compliance with any odor nuisance abatement
    deadline.
    In addition, Respondent wishes to strike the follow-
    ing portion of the opinion:
    “We note that many odor control techniques
    exist of which the Respondent has mentioned
    process modification and incineration as
    having a high probability of success.”
    Respondent,further, would wish to be bound only by a date for comple-
    tion of a solvent substitution program.
    The Record in this case includes over 1200 pages of testimony
    that has established an odor nuisance caused by Respondent.
    There
    is exhaustive testimony offered by Respondent that solvent emissions
    are not the source of the odor nuisance.
    For this reason, we find
    that
    a solvent substitution program alone would serve no real
    benefit, and a substitute order
    to that effect would be without
    merit.
    We are not concerned with the precise nature of Respondent’s
    manufacturing process, but with the environmental implications which
    we direct them to abate.
    Respondent alleges that it
    “will be impossible
    to comply with...
    complete abatement of the odor nuisance
    (by)
    no later than June
    1,
    1973.” However, nowhere in Respondent’s motion
    is any data or infor-
    mation provided that would support such a conclusion.
    The Order re-
    quired abatement of the odor nuisance,not complete abatement of the
    odors produced by Respondent’s
    facility.
    Respondent introduced exten-
    sive testimony on its odor abatement program which included impregna-
    7
    —
    143
    tion of the most noxious tapes with odor counteractants
    CR.
    1097)
    Respondent also provided testimony that those noxious tapes could
    be run on one machine which would reduce the cost of odor nuisance
    abatement
    (R.
    1120).
    Process modification and incineration were
    methods discussed in detail by Respondent.
    The sum and substance of
    that testimony was that Respondent was proceeding rapidly on an
    odor abatement program which would result in success.
    To date, Respondent has offered no program as required by the
    O:eder.
    That Order reflects the Board’s intention to not restrict
    Respondent’s approach to its problem.
    It
    is too soon for Respondent
    to seek relief from that Order.
    We might consider granting a
    subsequent variance request after the program has been submitted,
    found appropriate and implemented if the completion date then
    appears impossible and is not the result of the Company’s dilatory
    response.
    Respondent’s motion,
    if granted, would be a complete
    repudiation of the Opinion, not a modification of the Order.
    We
    therefore deny
    the
    motion
    for
    reconsideration
    of
    the
    January
    16,
    1973
    Oninion
    and
    Order.
    IT
    IS
    SO
    ORDERE).
    I,
    Christan
    Moffett,
    Clerk
    of
    the
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board,
    certify
    that
    the
    above
    Order
    was adopted on the
    J~day of February,
    1973,
    by a vote of
    ~
    to
    ________
    ~j.
    ~4_~
    ~
    7
    144

    Back to top